PDA

View Full Version : Creative Assembly MTW folk RE: RTW



Roark
11-24-2005, 04:07
OK, this is RTW-related, but I mainly wanted to get input from the MTW gamers who have played both... I hope your mods don't mind...

I find myself a little... seduced... by the (admittedly impressive) graphics and fancy units of the newer game. I've read a little about the AI problems involved with RTW, but I'm wondering... is it really as grim as it sounds? If I go "retrograde" and purchase RTW, will I be seriously disappointed? I've been playing at Expert level on MTW for a couple of months now, if that is any consideration... How about Rome Total Realism? Does it rectify many of the issues involved?

My intention is not to "bash" RTW's programmers or players, but could some of you outline what I could expect if I (hypothetically) purchased the game? Are the problems limited to the AI?

I'll probably never completely tire of MTW but, as they say, variety is the spice of life...

Thanks in advance guys.

Strike For The South
11-24-2005, 05:31
For me there realy isnt that much of a diffrence. When I play RTW the bugs are never as much as a problem as people make them out to be. Not to mention RTWs battles while being a bit fast a bit stupid (for the experniced MTW player) look and feel amazing. I have the RTR mod and its much better than vanilla. RTR also makes the battles a bit tougher to put it nearly on par with MTW. All in all the game IMO is worth it~:cheers:

lilljonas
11-24-2005, 15:10
My main problem is that the strategy map is even easier to exploit in R:TW. Yes, you can exploit the strategical weaknesses of the AI in S:TW and M:TW once you learn how, but the ease by which you can utterly crush enemies with almost no casualties in R:TW bothers me. I must say that BI was an improvement in this, since you actually risk losing troops and the smaller amount of cities means that it's a bit harder to divide and slay all enemies.

The inability to move armies long distances, the fact that anything can be crushed with cavalry (though, again, BI improved this) and that I'm simply not as interested in the era are the three major reasons why I prefer M:TW. Oh, and the "retrain your depleted army in one year and go conquer your next victim". In M:TW, casualties will be felt for more than one turn. I can act with much less strategic skills in R:TW without getting punished for it. That's a bad thing. ~;)

That said, with BI installed, R:TW is worth playing. I've gotten quite a few hours of entertainment from the campaigns, and it's a nice refreshment to see new troops. But is it a better game than M:TW? Most definately not.

Mithrandir
11-24-2005, 16:47
We have a specific RTW Forum.

Moved to RTW-dojo.

Kaldhore
11-24-2005, 17:16
I think theres only limited ways to compare the games as the engines are so totally different.

A.I. It may be just me but Ive found the AI lame in all TW games, I dont see RTW being THAT much worse - but the speed of the game makes the AI seem worse.

Speed - Im not sure if its realistic or unrealistic historically, but I get annoyed when I see historians talking about the Velites or Javelin infantry being out front of the main line. Its rediculously impossible to do that as by the time the enemy are in range of the javs - they dont get to throw one cos the enemy inf or usually the cav will charge and close the distance too fast.

Map terrain - Maps are worse in RTW. Each map is vacant and void or usuable hills - when there are hills, theyre usually on the attackers side and stupidly high..

All that being said I love RTW. The unit detail is fantastic ( BI unit detail is lame btw) especially those legionaires after the Marius Reforms. Even RTR spoiled the units. It may or may not be real but the Legions everyone knows and loves is when they wear the armour after the marius reforms - not the chainmail crap looking armour in BI, and the tan leggings...

Battles are Fantastic too :)

Its been 8 months since I played MTW - I miss it cos I was an online regular. But I wont be going back soon - I just cant get enough of RTW. Unlike the other guy I think B.I. Ruined RTW...

Third spearman from the left
11-24-2005, 17:47
Hi everyone,
this is something I've been thinking about, I've not played RTW or BI add on. I'm waiting to get a new computer before I can have a go, but I've played MTW so much and have found that the XL mod has made the game even more fun and that bit harder. I'm just wondering has the BI expansion not improved all the previous problems? Also does the BI changes take affect on all the start periods (eg. better AI in early periods as well later ones) I must admit lots of people don't seem to impressed from what I've read.

Red Harvest
11-24-2005, 17:47
Speed - Im not sure if its realistic or unrealistic historically, but I get annoyed when I see historians talking about the Velites or Javelin infantry being out front of the main line. Its rediculously impossible to do that as by the time the enemy are in range of the javs - they dont get to throw one cos the enemy inf or usually the cav will charge and close the distance too fast.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say. Velites and javelins DID fight out in front and from the flanks. The problem is that the way the game engine works, skirmishers cannot really run up release and skedaddle, they get caught. In real life, it didn't work that way. It is a game engine problem. In real life skirmishers would engage for a long time before the battle lines actually met, trying to drive each other's skirmishers away, and disrupt deployment of the battle line. It wouldn't just be 10 or 15 seconds and a single missile volley hurled.

The bigger problem with the skirmish mode is that the AI does not have any concept of how to actually skirmish and conduct ranged attacks. Exchanging missiles and trying to disrupt the enemy line is something it should be striving for. Instead it wants to melee with its skirmishers or charge the line with a few infantry or cav. It skips the traditional first phase of battle with javelin skirmishing. It is particularly obvious when it has a substantial advantage in missile units, but not in melee, when it still pushes for early melee--playing to its weakness rather than its strength. What it tends to do is charge its skirmishers forward hoping your ranged units will skedaddle. If you turn of skirmish for your men, it will CHARGE into them rather than stopping to trade vollies, which is assinine since its men are unsupported, while your infantry will rip them a new one.

If the AI was programmed to actually treat part of the battle as a skirmish phase it would be a lot different. Instead the AI acts brain dead when it comes to skirmishing. Therefore, because the AI only seems to understand CHARRRRGGGGE! you are reaching the conclusion that armies could not skirmish.

This problem was apparent in the original RTW demo, despite the scripting that had been done to get the AI to deploy properly for the Romans.

Kaldhore
11-24-2005, 19:16
Im talking about the game speed being and issue of RTW, and as I explained a good example of that is the velites not being able to fire out in the front before theyre charged. I agree its an engine issue - I was just pointing that out.

KRALLODHRIB
11-24-2005, 19:41
I feel that MTW was so far ahead of its time, but to be fair I think it is an extreme disservice to oneself to ignore RTW because of some rather minor criticisms. RTW (and BI) is an absolutely wonderful game that I still find addictive! Go for it Roark.

Audaces fortuna iuvat.

Just A Girl
11-24-2005, 19:42
you may or may not know About how easily RTW agrivates me,

But it will eventualy grow on you given time,
I find my self playing a hour or so of the stratagy part of rtw every week or so now,
So it cant be all that bad,
However MTW still dominates my Single player game time,
And STW just takes almost all of my mp gaming time,

So although i dont like RTW, and Initialy hated it,
I do ocoasionaly find time to play a hour or so here and there,
The stratmap really is quite good,
The economics of the game is quite like MTW with taxes and stuff,
I personaly Aprove of the way You are deployed in a battle Depending on where you were on the strat map when you were engaged.

The Naval part is difrent to mtw, But not that much difrent (id say MTW was better with that part)

The Ai is prety sleepy in battles if you compare it to STW, if your comparing it to MTW, Its not that bad.

It may not be your fave game in your pile of games, But i doubt it will be your worse,

One word of warning though i think that the minimum display For battles is 1024x768 and min for Strat map is 2048x1536

Im prety shure thats the case But i may be wrong,
This causes a problem for me as iI use a tv set not a monitor,
So the writing is To small to read on the Stratagy map,
(kind of agrivates me a little 2)

If you find it for a reasonable price i dont see why any 1 would not buy it.

Hope this helps your decision

oh
P.s
Cavalry can bearly catch fleeing archers In RTW,
The things are broken or something

Roark
11-24-2005, 23:07
Thanks everyone for you input. I really appreciate it.




We have a specific RTW Forum.

Moved to RTW-dojo.

Did you even read my initial post?

We all appreciate the job you guys do, but crikey...

lars573
11-24-2005, 23:07
RTW is an improvement in everyway over MTW. The best changes are the AI and the battle interface.

Red Harvest
11-24-2005, 23:42
RTW is an improvement in everyway over MTW. The best changes are the AI and the battle interface.

Most MTW vets will say the exact opposite of this 2nd sentence is a better representation of how it plays. I still prefer the old interface (it worked better in battle.) The AI is so much weaker in RTW that it really pales next to MTW. There are many things that have potential and look great in RTW, like the strategic map. But the battlefield AI is one of the things pulling heavily into the negative category for RTW. A few things have been fixed in 1.3 but other things have been broken. The slow down made in movement speed for some units does help in 1.3 vs. 1.2/1.1/1.0.

The best indication of just how weak the RTW AI is: 1 vs. 1 match ups against identical opponents on the flat grassland map. You should win easily, even when trying to make it an even test. :no: With 1.3 1vs1 unit testing doesn't even work properly anymore. ~:rolleyes: The basic things the AI neglects, like its pila or warcry...or charging/running when it clearly should all weaken it considerably. Then at 40-50% casualties it tries to retreat 30 yards and gets slaughtered? WTF?

With ranged units the RTW AI is utterly hopeless. The MTW AI wasn't brilliant with them, but it wasn't brain dead, and at least could inflict some attrition.

MTW is more of a challenge on the battlefield, this carries over to the strategic map because army management is more challenging when you actually take some casaulties. MTW has more campaigns and distinct era's that actually have some meaning in decisive parts of the game.

lars573
11-25-2005, 00:48
The only thing I hated about MTW were the battles. Horrible interface. Bad controls, and the AI didn't help. I sucked at them so bad it hurt. I stoped battles all together after playing MTW for a day of two. I got better results (as in less casualties) with auto-calc.

KRALLODHRIB
11-25-2005, 01:41
Horrible interface. Bad controls,

lars573, fyi in MTW you had more options on screen that allowed for faster gameplay. This was immensly important for mplay especially, but even made the single play more enjoyable. Hotkeys (I use shift 5/6 ALL the time!) are great but I loved those MTW formation buttons!


I still prefer the old interface (it worked better in battle.)

God do I miss the right click menu for skirmish!

Slug For A Butt
11-25-2005, 03:11
Most MTW vets will say the exact opposite of this 2nd sentence is a better representation of how it plays. I still prefer the old interface (it worked better in battle.) The AI is so much weaker in RTW that it really pales next to MTW. There are many things that have potential and look great in RTW, like the strategic map. But the battlefield AI is one of the things pulling heavily into the negative category for RTW. A few things have been fixed in 1.3 but other things have been broken. The slow down made in movement speed for some units does help in 1.3 vs. 1.2/1.1/1.0.

The best indication of just how weak the RTW AI is: 1 vs. 1 match ups against identical opponents on the flat grassland map. You should win easily, even when trying to make it an even test. :no: With 1.3 1vs1 unit testing doesn't even work properly anymore. ~:rolleyes: The basic things the AI neglects, like its pila or warcry...or charging/running when it clearly should all weaken it considerably. Then at 40-50% casualties it tries to retreat 30 yards and gets slaughtered? WTF?

With ranged units the RTW AI is utterly hopeless. The MTW AI wasn't brilliant with them, but it wasn't brain dead, and at least could inflict some attrition.

MTW is more of a challenge on the battlefield, this carries over to the strategic map because army management is more challenging when you actually take some casaulties. MTW has more campaigns and distinct era's that actually have some meaning in decisive parts of the game.

Personally, STW bores me to tears. It's so limited.
MTW is a good game, but I still really don't understand why people rave about the AI in MTW/VI compared to RTW, remember jedi generals? How sick were they? Just because the battles are faster in RTW(low def ratings-easily modified)
I honestly think the AI in RTW is just as good, but lots of people like to wear rose tinted spectacles and bang on about how wonderful the AI was in STW and MTW when really it wasn't. Anyone remember chasing STW units all the way round the battlemap and having to corner them them before they would even fight you? Wonderful AI huh? Noones bitching about that now though are they?
Let's all wake up and smell the coffee, the AI is as adequate as the other TW games.

*EDIT: The strategy map in RTW is soooo much better too, I hated the STW/MTW/RISK style of map. I much prefer the strategic map in RTW, it's 3D instead of 2D. And I don't mean that visually. Where you place your armies actually affects where you fight your batles, such as defending in mountains is a good thing.

lars573
11-25-2005, 03:26
lars573, fyi in MTW you had more options on screen that allowed for faster gameplay. This was immensly important for mplay especially, but even made the single play more enjoyable. Hotkeys (I use shift 5/6 ALL the time!) are great but I loved those MTW formation buttons!
Never once played multiplayer MTW or any TW or any RTS game period. So you can see how speed is not an issue. Ease of us is, and MTW interface was not that. There was so much sh*t on screen you could (and I did often) click the wrong button by mistake and have to stop fix what you did and then do what you intended to do.



God do I miss the right click menu for skirmish!
Argh I hated that!

Slug For A Butt
11-25-2005, 03:32
Me too.

KRALLODHRIB
11-25-2005, 03:41
I did often) click the wrong button by mistake and have to stop fix what you did and then do what you intended to do.

Hmm. . .I never found it confusing. Maybe it's the mouse you used or perhaps there was a proc lag? It was that element-the onscreen controls-of accessibility that I found expressly convenient. :bow:

Suum cuique pulchrum est

Slug For A Butt
11-25-2005, 03:54
I always found there was a load of useless shit on the screen in MTW... menus...submenus etc.
And now I have got used to it, I find the RTW control system so much more intuitive. Now whenever I play MTW (rarely), I find the control system archaich and unnatural. The AI is no better, you just get more annoyed by routing units coming back to piss you off. And once again, I'll mention the jedi generals. Dammit, the battles are unnattractive to look at because everyone is dressed in grey. I don't care how unrealistic it is, I like the colours assigned to different factions in RTW/BI because you can discriminate on the battlefield.

lars573
11-25-2005, 03:58
I always found there was a load of useless shit on the screen in MTW... menus...submenus etc.
And now I have got used to it, I find the RTW control system so much more intuitive. Now whenever I play MTW (rarely), I find the control system archaich and unnatural. The AI is no better, you just get more annoyed by routing units coming back to piss you off. And once again, I'll mention the jedi generals. Dammit, the battles are unnattractive to look at because everyone is dressed in grey. I don't care how unrealistic it is, I like the colours assigned to different factions in RTW/BI because you can discriminate on the battlefield.
Agreed. But I never liked nor disliked the little sprite-men of STW and MTW. They served their purpose well enough.

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 04:36
Personally, STW bores me to tears. It's so limited.
MTW is a good game, but I still really don't understand why people rave about the AI in MTW/VI compared to RTW, remember jedi generals? How sick were they? Just because the battles are faster in RTW(low def ratings-easily modified)
You can change some settings, but there is only so far you can go with it. Movement speeds can't be modded decently. 1.3 improves some of these issues. However, RTW requires MASSIVE amounts of modding to give the same quality of battle experience as MTW. Hence, my sig.


I honestly think the AI in RTW is just as good, but lots of people like to wear rose tinted spectacles and bang on about how wonderful the AI was in STW and MTW when really it wasn't. Anyone remember chasing STW units all the way round the battlemap and having to corner them them before they would even fight you? Wonderful AI huh? Noones bitching about that now though are they?
That was a lot smarter of the AI than watching you flank it onto high ground and then kicking its butt, like RTW does. Sheesh. And actually it made some sense...since your fatigued men were in worse shape for the chase. Horse archers were a handful if you were not mindful.

The AI was never perfect, but it was far more of a challenge than RTW puts up.



Let's all wake up and smell the coffee, the AI is as adequate as the other TW games.
Smelling salts might be in order rather than coffee if you believe that. In MTW I wasn't winning battles inflicting 1600 casualties while suffering 10 versus a superior quality force on the hardest settings...I am in RTW.


*EDIT: The strategy map in RTW is soooo much better too, I hated the STW/MTW/RISK style of map. I much prefer the strategic map in RTW, it's 3D instead of 2D. And I don't mean that visually. Where you place your armies actually affects where you fight your batles, such as defending in mountains is a good thing.
The new strategic map would be great if the AI had a better idea of how to use it. That has improved from 1.0 to 1.2, and 1.3, but it still is not sufficient. In some ways the AI could pick its moves better in MTW, although it still fell into traps. The AI certainly managed its stacks better in MTW/STW than in RTW.

And in case you didn't know you *could* and did pick where you fought your battles in MTW to some degree. The adjoining borders were used to select the map types. Just like as in war, there were some uncertainties as to where you might actually make contact and take the field. It wasn't a bad solution at all for a Risk style map.

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 04:45
The only thing I hated about MTW were the battles. Horrible interface. Bad controls, and the AI didn't help. I sucked at them so bad it hurt. I stoped battles all together after playing MTW for a day of two. I got better results (as in less casualties) with auto-calc.
I think we've hit at the heart of the matter then. You didn't like the controls of MTW and found the battles too hard. Fair enough. However, if you only gave it a day or two, then it is really hard for me to accept that you know much about MTW's AI at all.

I'm trying to see how someone so unfamiliar with MTW's AI could come to the conclusion that RTW's AI as better? In fact, quite the opposite would appear to be true based on what you said. It appears you found the MTW battlefield AI harder than RTW.

TB666
11-25-2005, 08:36
I enjoy RTW+BI alot more then I did with MTW+VI.
Sure MTW was good for it's time but now no.
The AI is slightly better in RTW+BI.
The map is better and the battle-maps are better as well.
I especially enjoy how the campaign map and battle map are linked together.
The battles are far more exciting and spectacular then MTW were.
Sure they maybe over faster but they are still sexy.
I have tried going back to MTW but I just couldn't.
It was just impossible.
So RTW+BI all the way :charge:

hellenes
11-25-2005, 09:40
"Better" = *cough*LOOKS better*cough*
Graphics, graphics, graphics...

Hellenes

Just A Girl
11-25-2005, 10:51
Are you guys shure you own MTW?

I Dont think you know what your talking about if your saying the battle interface is better in rtw,
You cant even angle your camera up or down, with right click in rome,


And im sorry to say But you cant say the battle interface sucked in mtw becous you could only fight 2 battles Loose them,
Then Instantly start using auto calc so u can win,AND Then Have the nerve to say the interface better in rtw becous you can now win.
MTW interface was not the problem, Your lack of commitment Was the reason you sucked at mtw battles,

And Its not the Interface that makes RTW any better,
Its the Fact that the AI sux that makes you think your any good,

stw/Mtw controlls and interface are Much better than Rtw,
But When you "noobie-ize" a game
(make it so Real noob's can pic up and play with no probs)
The controlls are usualy the 1st to sufffer,

when i first bought STW, It took me about a month to win my 1st battle vs the ai,

MTW wasnt so bad, But were good battles,

But with RTW, Any one can pick it up and wipe out an AI army,
(its been made for newer players, and as a result real tw players suffer)

TB666
11-25-2005, 13:16
Are you guys shure you own MTW?
Both STW and MTW since the day they got out and I still say RTW is better.



You cant even angle your camera up or down, with right click in rome, Yes you can. Not by default but you can change it.


stw/Mtw controlls and interface are Much better than Rtw,
But When you "noobie-ize" a game
(make it so Real noob's can pic up and play with no probs)
The controlls are usualy the 1st to sufffer,
Man, what an elitist you are.
The controls are far better now.
CA making them user-friendly isn't a bad thing you know.



when i first bought STW, It took me about a month to win my 1st battle vs the ai,~:joker:
When Shogun got out and I got the game I had no idea about strategy.
I did not know anything about flanking, high ground and all that and still I butchered the AI on my first battle on Hard level.

Dutch_guy
11-25-2005, 13:29
*EDIT: The strategy map in RTW is soooo much better too, I hated the STW/MTW/RISK style of map. I much prefer the strategic map in RTW, it's 3D instead of 2D. And I don't mean that visually. Where you place your armies actually affects where you fight your batles, such as defending in mountains is a good thing.

I liked them both equally ( MTW / RTW strat map. ) even though Rome's was obviously very well done and a lot prettier than the MTW one.
The thing I liked of the mTW strat map, was that every province you invaded really hurt the enemy , and if you weren't carefull enough the enemy could just hit you back that same turn , in your now weak(ened) province.
And the Ai was good at this, the strat map was a simpler thing for the AI to handle in MTW than it is in RTW.
Which made for a more challenging game.

I have therefor always missed the lack of ''attrition'''you got when an enemy army marched into your lands in Rome.
Yes, you do get the black stuff , called destruction on the map... but the damage that did was manage able.
You should be able to decide immediatly what is to be done if the enemy marches into your lands.
In MTW this was needed, you'd either defend or retreat out/to of the province / castle.
In Rome, neutral wannabee enemy armies just sit in your lands, sometimes for in game years, and do nothing...
And you know that attacking them means an instant war, which you may just want to prevent.

:balloon2:

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 17:53
The AI is slightly better in RTW+BI.
So are you telling us you take higher casualties in RTW/BI than you did in comparable MTW battles? While I won most MTW battles, I win nearly ALL RTW battles, and so lopsidedly that the campaign is a yawn. I still cannot see how someone can say the AI opponent is better in RTW. Unless it is inflicting greater percentage casualties than in MTW and/or winning more battles, it is not better.


The map is better and the battle-maps are better as well.
Huh? The strategic map looks great in RTW, but its battle maps have fewer features than MTW. Trees don't even figure into most battles (can't recall any RTW fights I've had for the treeline), weather effects don't mean much, and desert is no big deal in RTW. I've never had to go "hunting" for hidden enemy on the RTW battlefield. To say the battle maps are better in RTW you are in effect saying you like really bland maps.


I especially enjoy how the campaign map and battle map are linked together.
The battles are far more exciting and spectacular then MTW were.

The battle maps were linked together before. ~:rolleyes: I guess if you consider knowing you are going to win as "exciting"...then RTW battles are more "exciting." Or maybe it is just the speed of battle that makes it more "exciting"?

CountMRVHS
11-25-2005, 18:37
I was going to write up a big response for this thread,but at this point I think I can simply agree with most of what Red Harvest and Dutch Guy have said already. Couple of things, though.

I think I got MTW fairly late... summer of 02, I believe. Don't know when it first came out. I quickly got VI after that, and fell in love with the game. Then I started reading that RTW was coming out, and couldn't wait for that... when it finally appeared, I grabbed a copy the first day and started playing. I think I went a few months with RTW, and then started playing MTW again. For months I didn't touch RTW, but I was reading about BI and getting excited for that... Despite not being a huge RTW fan I bought BI when it first came out. Now I haven't played MTW in a couple months.

In MTW battles the kill/movement speeds are slower (allowing for more maneuvers and tactics); the AI tries to flank you more consistently; the AI responds to your maneuvers in a more logical manner (ie moving to face your flank attack; moving to higher ground); the AI will skirmish more consistently; and the camera controls seem more effective than in RTW.

RTW has improved some of the battle interface IMO, by separating movement and selection orders onto different buttons of the mouse (how annoying was it in MTW when you'd have a unit of cav selected, then try to select another unit but miss, thus sending your cav over to that area instead? in the heat of battle when you don't pause this sort of thing is very frustrating), and by allowing you to "strafe" the camera with the arrow keys. I also like the < and > keys for quick rotation of units. Plus, I'd be lying if I said the graphics meant nothing to me -- RTW is a beautiful game. Not so gorgeous that I'll never go back to MTW or overlook RTW's problems, but there are some very cinematic moments in RTW battles as you fly over the heads of your charging cav -- all the more pity there's no campaign battle replay option!

Strategically, RTW hasn't ruined me for MTW either. The RTW naval system is better, I think. And I like the way you can move your armies around behind enemy lines, using your spies to scout out the positions of the big enemy stacks, and trying to draw off enemy incursions into your realm by besieging their own cities. You can do some of those things in MTW, but it's abstracted a bit more.

Anyway, I'm not a fanatic for either game, but I have to say that if you're used to the MTW battles it'll take you some time to get comfortable with RTW battles. The first few times you may find yourself hating the interface, slow mouse speed, and quirkiness of it all. But if you're into the historical period like I am, you'll find yourself enjoying it despite its faults.

CountMRVHS

Viking
11-25-2005, 18:42
So are you telling us you take higher casualties in RTW/BI than you did in comparable MTW battles? While I won most MTW battles, I win nearly ALL RTW battles, and so lopsidedly that the campaign is a yawn. I still cannot see how someone can say the AI opponent is better in RTW. Unless it is inflicting greater percentage casualties than in MTW and/or winning more battles, it is not better.

The difficulty of Battles doesn`t necessarily have do much with how good the AI is; interface and whether the the AI cheating counts for just as much. Play a medium battle in Rome, then try the same with VH difficulty. I believe the AI in Rome have more strategic actions possible, so hence it is better, or at least more advanced.

TB666
11-25-2005, 20:49
So are you telling us you take higher casualties in RTW/BI than you did in comparable MTW battles?
Yes


Huh? The strategic map looks great in RTW, but its battle maps have fewer features than MTW. Trees don't even figure into most battles (can't recall any RTW fights I've had for the treeline), weather effects don't mean much, and desert is no big deal in RTW. I've never had to go "hunting" for hidden enemy on the RTW battlefield. To say the battle maps are better in RTW you are in effect saying you like really bland maps.
I have had lots of battles in forest in RTW.
I never went hunting for hidden in MTW either.
Haven't seen a single unit hidden in MTW so I don't care.


The battle maps were linked together before. ~:rolleyes: I guess if you consider knowing you are going to win as "exciting"...then RTW battles are more "exciting." Or maybe it is just the speed of battle that makes it more "exciting"?
They are more linked now.
In MTW you got a random generated map based on certain features the province have.
In RTW the maps are based on what you see on the campaign map hence they are linked.
Also can point out that I lost alot more battles in RTW then I did on MTW+STW combined.

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 21:34
Yes
What sort of win loss ratio do you get in RTW? I rarely lose a battle even on VH. Until I'm outnumbered over 2:1 it's almost a gimme. 1.3 is a little better, but even as Parthia or Dacia my win loss ratio is between 20:1 and 50:1. And my margin of victory is usually greater than 4:1 and often 10:1 or greater.


I have had lots of battles in forest in RTW.
I never went hunting for hidden in MTW either.
Haven't seen a single unit hidden in MTW so I don't care.
You never used forest in MTW to survive a missile barrage? Or to fight cavalry? Or to hide a unit? or two? or three?

You never had to go find your opponent and hidden units in MTW? I've fought battles in heavy and light forest in RTW, didn't seem to have much impact on what was happening--tactics were the same, unlike MTW. There has been little in the way of forest in 90% of the RTW battles, so moving to the woods has not been an option. Even where it was, it didn't seem to do much meaningful.


In RTW the maps are based on what you see on the campaign map hence they are linked.
Yet at times I will place a unit on a knoll on the RTW stratigic map, only to find myself in the hole, with the enemy occupying the knoll I was on in the strat map. In some ways RTW is worse about not positioning your army where you expect it to be.

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 21:38
The difficulty of Battles doesn`t necessarily have do much with how good the AI is; interface and whether the the AI cheating counts for just as much. Play a medium battle in Rome, then try the same with VH difficulty. I believe the AI in Rome have more strategic actions possible, so hence it is better, or at least more advanced.
You are confusing complexity of the game, for complexity of the AI. I only play RTW on VH/VH. RTW is more complex than MTW particularly on the strategic map, but the AI is not more effective. (All those stacks doing nothing in home provinces are a tip off...I couldn't afford to have two provinces and three full stacks of my best troops standing around idle next to my capitol. The AI seems to think this is OK.)

DensterNY
11-25-2005, 21:50
I've played RTW, RTW:BI, MTW and MTW:VI and I do agree that battles are more challenging in MTW overall because the AI does seem to make smarter decisions. Here are three reasons that I think they differ:

1. The emphasis and advantage of height seems watered down in Rome as compared to MTW.
2. The Rome AI doesn't look to flank as often and doesn't keep its line intact.
3. The AI doesn't know how to use its missile troops properly.
4. Cavalry are a little overpowered in Rome.

Here are some of my experiences and why I believe these are the differences.

1. I recently fought a defensive fight in RTW:BI where I placed my archers at the crest of a hill behind spears which should afford me great advantage. However, my archers didn't get noticeable range bonus and in fact when my archers began firing the AI's archers were nearly in range to exchange fire with them. I conducted a few tests after this I realized that the height advantage has been seriously watered down. Therefore the AI doesn't have this one strategic objective in mind when it fights you and places and arranges all of its troops according to whatever logic has been coded for it. In MTW, the AI would always adjust its missile troops at the highest ground it could find and always behind its infantry/cavalry.

2. Nearly all of the my battles against the Rome AI involves it breaking apart its approaching line and trying to drive into the center of my line. It would even use its cavalry in this manner despite the damage they could do if they tried to flank my troops. Its not much better with their infantry cause they'd come at me piecemeal and not as one solid line which I'd quickly envelope, decimate and rout then quickly reform my line.

3. I have no idea but I can stand at a close distance to the AI's troops whom have javelin and secondary missile weapons and they simply won't fire them even as my troops stand there and pelt them with the same.

4. The cavalry advantage usually made the difference in medieval warfare because you could flank but even in Rome most of the cavalry are so powerful you can slam them into anything and do some good damage, over and over again. In MTW, there were only a few units of heavy cavalry that you could use for direct frontal assaults while the rest were only good to attack rear line missle units or to smash into the rear of engaged infantry.

Anyways, that's just my two cents... I'm not bashing Rome though because with BI and also some of the great mods out there its still plenty of fun. MTW offers a more challenging opponent on the battlefield but honestly after a few dozen fights you learn to beat the AI anytime with a comparable or slightly inferior army. (Of course that is more enjoyable than better than beating an army in RTW with a greatly inferior army)

lars573
11-25-2005, 22:58
I think we've hit at the heart of the matter then. You didn't like the controls of MTW and found the battles too hard. Fair enough. However, if you only gave it a day or two, then it is really hard for me to accept that you know much about MTW's AI at all.

I'm trying to see how someone so unfamiliar with MTW's AI could come to the conclusion that RTW's AI as better? In fact, quite the opposite would appear to be true based on what you said. It appears you found the MTW battlefield AI harder than RTW.
Let's see I played about 16 battles (this is the roughest of estimates) in STW before I read that you could auto-calc. Then I always auto-calced and never looked back. I got MTW about 1 month max after it's release and I tried some battles to see if battles had changed much. They hadn't, not much at all. It was the same frustration all over again. And not the good kind of frustration that a game gives, but the bad kind that makes you not want to do something anymore. So I don't, and won't much ever. STW taugh me what I didn't like in battles and MTW was more of the same.



Are you guys shure you own MTW?
I could post a pic of my beat up MTW and VI CD's and STW warlord edition if you don't believe me.


I Dont think you know what your talking about if your saying the battle interface is better in rtw,
You cant even angle your camera up or down, with right click in rome,
Is it so hard to fathom that something you like others can despise. It's hard but I can accept that others like MTW battles. Plus I'm so glad the right click camrera up down thing is gone. I lost a battle when I stumbeled into it and was stuck looking at the sky while my army was raped and killed.



And im sorry to say But you cant say the battle interface sucked in mtw becous you could only fight 2 battles Loose them,
Then Instantly start using auto calc so u can win,AND Then Have the nerve to say the interface better in rtw becous you can now win.
MTW interface was not the problem, Your lack of commitment Was the reason you sucked at mtw battles,
It's a combination of a vastly better interface and toned down AI that makes RTW battles enjoyable for me.


And Its not the Interface that makes RTW any better,
Its the Fact that the AI sux that makes you think your any good,
I realize that. And I'm more than happy with things the way they are.


stw/Mtw controlls and interface are Much better than Rtw,
But When you "noobie-ize" a game
(make it so Real noob's can pic up and play with no probs)
The controlls are usualy the 1st to sufffer,
Controls are the gateway to a game. If there is a steep learning curve in the game controls, then it limits who can play it.


when i first bought STW, It took me about a month to win my 1st battle vs the ai,
Which makes them too hard and in need of nurfing. Which they were in RTW.


MTW wasnt so bad, But were good battles,

But with RTW, Any one can pick it up and wipe out an AI army,
(its been made for newer players, and as a result real tw players suffer)
Get down of your high horse and pull your head out of your ass you majesty. Broader appeal means more TW games.

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 23:24
DensterNY,

I think CA have done something in 1.3 to help address the height/range issue--although I'm not sure what. I did notice in 1.3 that my units higher up had extra range compared to 1.2/1.1/1.0 and that I had less range when I was climbing compared to my enemy. (I have since augmented the effect by changing velocities.) In earlier versions of RTW, I had the same range as the enemy regardless of height difference. Height does have some impact on kill rate, but I don't know how it is implemented.

One thing you can do to really help in regard to reducing range with elevation difference, is to reduce velocities of projectiles in descr_projectiles_new.txt. I used the "range equation" to calculate appropriate velocities for arrows at different ranges. I gave them *some* excess velocity but not nearly so much as they had. I have created new projectile entries for elite archers, horse archers, and vanilla archers--with corresponding decreases in range and velocity for each (47 m/sec, 42 m/sec, and 40 m/sec respectively, versus the all encompassing single arrow at 48 m/sec.) This is particularly noticeable for the vanilla archers as they can no longer fire great distances when at much lower elevation.

When adding new arrows I did not carry over the "flaming" option for the new projectiles, as I feel it was not well implemented gameplay/history wise. However if you want to have them, but make their effective range more realistic (since velocity/range are reduced versus lighter/more aerodynamic normal arrows) you can also reduce the effective range of flaming ammo using the same sort of method. I tested that in 1.2 and it worked.

I did a similar thing for javelins and pila. Reducing their "excess" velocity means they no longer throw an extra 50 meters at *retreating* foes as well...this was really noticeable with javelins and pila.

For slingers I kept the velocity near where it was to keep the trajectory flat (so they couldn't easily fire over walls, mainly.) I did knock 5 meters/sec off the sling stone velocity compared to the bullet though.

Red Harvest
11-25-2005, 23:38
Let's see I played about 16 battles (this is the roughest of estimates) in STW before I read that you could auto-calc. Then I always auto-calced and never looked back. I got MTW about 1 month max after it's release and I tried some battles to see if battles had changed much. They hadn't, not much at all. It was the same frustration all over again. And not the good kind of frustration that a game gives, but the bad kind that makes you not want to do something anymore. So I don't, and won't much ever. STW taugh me what I didn't like in battles and MTW was more of the same.

Lars573, there is nothing wrong about your disliking the interface or not liking STW/MTW battles. That is a subjective thing. However, saying that you didn't do well in STW/MTW battles certainly implies that the battlefield AI was *better* rather than worse in those games.

What it appears to distill down to is your enjoying the feel of the battle more in RTW because of its interface. AI is a separate matter. To form a strong opinion of the AI on a handful of battles while trying to learn the interface doesn't seem valid.

lars573
11-25-2005, 23:47
Lars573, there is nothing wrong about your disliking the interface or not liking STW/MTW battles. That is a subjective thing. However, saying that you didn't do well in STW/MTW battles certainly implies that the battlefield AI was *better* rather than worse in those games.

What it appears to distill down to is your enjoying the feel of the battle more in RTW because of its interface. AI is a separate matter. To form a strong opinion of the AI on a handful of battles while trying to learn the interface doesn't seem valid.
I played enough to from a opinion. To you the harder AI was better, to me it was a pain that CA relieved. I gave up on the S/MTW clunker interface and just tried to play the battles. And I got one Phyrric victory after another. The exact same as with STW. I know the AI, and I didn't like it.

hellenes
11-26-2005, 03:01
I played enough to from a opinion. To you the harder AI was better, to me it was a pain that CA relieved. I gave up on the S/MTW clunker interface and just tried to play the battles. And I got one Phyrric victory after another. The exact same as with STW. I know the AI, and I didn't like it.

Lars
Youre actually a developers' dream customer...
If all we would be like you, they wouldnt have to write millions of "AI" code lines and interactions. I wish I had same approach, RTW wouldnt be so boring and I would find a challenge and enjoyment...

Hellenes

HarunTaiwan
11-26-2005, 03:30
Hmmmmm, I'm thinking of re-installing MTW.

I do recall hard battles and hidden units and maneuver, etc.

RTW is quite boring. They need to fix the tactical AI big time.

Lars: Many people by the TW series BECAUSE you can fight the tactical battles. You are more interested in the strategic part, which is fine, but the tactical battles probably attract 90% of TW customers.

Tyrac
11-26-2005, 14:09
A true litmus test would be a person who played RTW:BI FIRST and then tried out MTW. If you played MTW first and then moved to RTW of COURSE MTW was a greater challenge. The AI is basically the same and the same tricks work in both so if you learned to beat the AI in MTW then you are a vet and can also smash it in RTW.

If you really want a challenge in RTW then play as if exterminate is not an option that you can click. No full stacks of elite unit rolling out of your core territories turn after turn to smash all you see. No exterminate means you cannot afford much.

Just A Girl
11-26-2005, 14:18
A true litmus test would be a person who played RTW:BI FIRST and then tried out MTW. If you played MTW first and then moved to RTW of COURSE MTW was a greater challenge. The AI is basically the same and the same tricks work in both so if you learned to beat the AI in MTW then you are a vet and can also smash it in RTW.



The ai in mtw Is a challange when i play MTW,

The AI in VI is a chalange when i play VI

The ai In STW is still a challange when i play STW.

The AI in MI/WE is a challange when i play MI/WE
These games I still play cos The Ai Is a challange,.

But The Ai in rtw Is Idiotic, RTW Is not a chalange,

And BI is technically a diferent game,
But The AI in that is same as RTW, So you should see the patern,

------

And just to re-address the interface coments made by lars,

I dont see how The Simple controls of Stw and MTW can be called bad,

There as simple as can be,
Right click adjusts camera.

To select a unit Left click on the unit you want,
Then Left click where you want him to go,

if you want to, you can.. Hold down left click and Drag them in to a line,
There are Also EASY to see use and understand Icons for some default formations,

If you want them to run, Either double click on where he is going Or right click his Unit card and say run.

It really could not be more simple,

In RTW Its all backwards n retarded,

select your man with left click.
You must now use right click to tell him where to go,
So there goes your vision,
(Guess you couldnt moove your neck to pitch up n down)

So weve started telling our men to moove,
now to make them run...
We haft to look through a bunch of buttons?
Thats Just dumb.

No wonder you get To much think time in rtw,
the controlls are so clunky you need an extra 30 seconds per manoover,

I think its a shame you never fully attempted to play the Better Total war games properly,
Maby after you do you could discuss the layouts of the controlls futher,

But seeing as you never really played battles in STW or MTW becous the AI was to good,
I dont see the point in you telling me Anything about the battle interface.

:bow:

lars573
11-26-2005, 14:57
The ai in mtw Is a challange when i play MTW,
The AI in VI is a chalange when i play VI
The ai In STW is still a challange when i play STW.
The AI in MI/WE is a challange weh i play MI/WE
These games I still play cos The Ai Is a challange,.

But The Ai in rtw Is Idiotic, RTW Is not a chalange,

And BI is technically a diferent game,
But The AI in that is same as RTW, So you should see the patern,
I don't want a challenge, I want to win. When playing MTW I play maybe 5 turns before I shut off the AI so can I play the game in peace.


And just to re-address the interface coments made by lars,

I dont see how The Simple controls of Stw and MTW can be called bad,

There as simple as can be,
Right click adjusts camera.
To select a usnit Left click on the unit you want,
Then Left click where you want him to go,

if you want to, you can.. Hold down left click and Drag them in to a line,
There are Also EASY to see use and understand Icons for some default formations,

If you want them to run, Either double click on where he is going Or right click his Unit card and say run.

It really could not be more simple,

In RTW Its all backwards n retarded,

select your man with left click.
You must now use right click to tell him where to go,
So there goes your vision,
(Guess you couldnt moove your neck to pich um n down)

So weve started telling our men to moove,
now to make them run...
We haft to look through a bunch of buttons?
Thats Just dumb.

No wonder you get To much think time in rtw,
the controlls are so clunky you need an extra 30 seconds per manoover,
Simple? Wait your a woman, you can keep track of the BS that MTW has on screen. You can double click for units to run in RTW too (or press R), and drag to form lines and boxes with them too. I do not miss the adjustable camera in the least. I think you didn't play RTW battles as you think I didn't play MTW battles. Also the entire strategy genre has gone to right click for movement. You can thank Age of empires for that. Every other game had to have right click movement. Minimalist interface=good, a 6x5 cm box on the screen where you can see what your army is doing=bad.

Alexander the Pretty Good
11-26-2005, 15:10
The RTW interface is kinda cluttered as well (to me) with the AoE style Big Box on the Bottom (BBotB). You can get rid of it, but then there isn't the handy-dandy right-click for more commands menu...

I always found Viking Invasion to be fun. Fighting huscarles was terrifying. They cut up my men like a hot lightsaber through butter. They were an elite unit, and one worthy of respect - and fear. I lost men, lots of them, fighting Vikes (and Mercians, the blue so-and-so's).

I can't really remember any of that in RTW/BI. Using some crap infantry, you can pin anything at all and flank it (at lightspeed) before the AI can do anything about it, or break through the pinning unit.

:hide:

Just A Girl
11-26-2005, 15:12
i play STW MTW And RTW,

Diference between us I find the stw or mtw controlls Easy and almost perfect for the uses they are needed.
Ther are also Short cut keys in STW and MTW
Theres nothing you need to keep an eye on in stw or mtw battles that you dont need to keep an eye on in rtw

Thanx to the abilaty to angle your camera EASILY in stw and mtw,
The GUI, is not a problem And is bearly noticable

I am not a Woman Btw, This is trish's account and i am ShambleS using this account,

I dont really understand you argument any more,
If you want age of empires controlls then The obvious game of choice for you would be,
Age of empires.

The ai was to good for you in STW and MTW, So you blame the controlls.,
"a Bad workman always blames his tools"

lars573
11-26-2005, 16:05
i play STW MTW And RTW,

Diference between us I find the stw or mtw controlls Easy and almost perfect for the uses they are needed.
Ther are also Short cut keys in STW and MTW
Theres nothing you need to keep an eye on in stw or mtw battles that you dont need to keep an eye on in rtw

Thanx to the abilaty to angle your camera EASILY in stw and mtw,
The GUI, is not a problem And is bearly noticable

I am not a Woman Btw, This is trish's account and i am ShambleS using this account,

I dont really understand you argument any more,
If you want age of empires controlls then The obvious game of choice for you would be,
Age of empires.

The ai was to good for you in STW and MTW, So you blame the controlls.,
"a Bad workman always blames his tools"
2nd time I have to say this. AI+shitty interface=me no enjoy battles. I could try and dumb that down more but I don't think I could. Also the right click thing is so that new TW players don't get mucked up trying battles. All stratedy games are going to the right click way.

hellenes
11-26-2005, 17:14
2nd time I have to say this. AI+shitty interface=me no enjoy battles. I could try and dumb that down more but I don't think I could. Also the right click thing is so that new TW players don't get mucked up trying battles. All stratedy games are going to the right click way.

"Strategy"????????
You call dump resource collecting shortcut and build order memorising, clickfest STRATEGY?
Sorry lars but I would suggest you to give MTW another go ON EASY this time...

Hellenes

Red Harvest
11-26-2005, 17:44
I don't want a challenge, I want to win.
Yes, I had already figured that out. That is why your statement about the AI of RTW being better was utterly false. It is easier for you to beat in battle. Congratulations, that is what everyone else is saying too. Easier to beat does not equal "better."

If you just want to win, then RTW is a better choice for you. Nobody is arguing with that.

Right click movement is just one part of the interface...if you never got past that, then indeed it is your adaptability that is the problem, not MTW's interface. While it is certainly a subjective matter as to which one *prefers*, most of us still find MTW's interface quite usable in battle.

lars573
11-26-2005, 17:49
The difficulty wouldn't make a difference. All those battles I was talking about were on easy. I got bored with the strat game on easy so I tried medium thinking it would be less annoying and more rewarding. All the AI did was cheat more and throw more armies at me. Gah!!, you see why I don't venerate MTW like some holy relic. It was a good game but had major major flaws. Like horrible AI, RTW duming down of the AI made it better. But it's still not good, it was more a less bad solution. The primitive, cluttered, and counter intuetive battle interface, left click movement and every thing you can do right there on the screen is so 1997.

Viking
11-26-2005, 17:56
You are confusing complexity of the game, for complexity of the AI. I only play RTW on VH/VH. RTW is more complex than MTW particularly on the strategic map, but the AI is not more effective. (All those stacks doing nothing in home provinces are a tip off...I couldn't afford to have two provinces and three full stacks of my best troops standing around idle next to my capitol. The AI seems to think this is OK.)

No, I am not confusing complexity of the game with the AI. In RTW it is possible with ambushes, and the AI uses them. In MTW there are no ambushes for the AI to exploit. Since RTW got all the strategic options that MTW have and more, that the AI can use, the AI in RTW is more advanced. But it is not more effective/aggressive in RTW, that`s correct.

Red Harvest
11-26-2005, 18:29
No, I am not confusing complexity of the game with the AI. In RTW it is possible with ambushes, and the AI uses them. In MTW there are no ambushes for the AI to exploit. Since RTW got all the strategic options that MTW have and more, that the AI can use, the AI in RTW is more advanced. But it is not more effective/aggressive in RTW, that`s correct.
Now you have changed the subject. Again you are going for complexity, not effectiveness. The AI is not being more effective therefore it is not better. Different for a different game, but not better. Having more options to respond to may make it more advanced by one measure, but it is also making it less advanced by another (how "smart" it is in actual play.)

Viking
11-26-2005, 18:47
Now you have changed the subject. Again you are going for complexity, not effectiveness. The AI is not being more effective therefore it is not better. Different for a different game, but not better. Having more options to respond to may make it more advanced by one measure, but it is also making it less advanced by another (how "smart" it is in actual play.)

It depends about what you lay in the word 'better'. If the AI in RTW is more advanced(complex) than in MTW, then it`s better. If the AI in MTW is more effective than in RTW, then it`s better. And then it`s also to define advanced. It`s a discsussion about definitions.

Red Harvest
11-26-2005, 19:16
It depends about what you lay in the word 'better'. If the AI in RTW is more advanced(complex) than in MTW, then it`s better. If the AI in MTW is more effective than in RTW, then it`s better. And then it`s also to define advanced. It`s a discsussion about definitions.
Complex does not = better any more than simpler = better. However, when discussing something competitive when we say one side is better, it is because they are more likely to win. Rarely would someone call an 0-15 team "better" than an 8-7 team...

hellenes
11-26-2005, 19:55
The difficulty wouldn't make a difference. All those battles I was talking about were on easy. I got bored with the strat game on easy so I tried medium thinking it would be less annoying and more rewarding. All the AI did was cheat more and throw more armies at me. Gah!!, you see why I don't venerate MTW like some holy relic. It was a good game but had major major flaws. Like horrible AI, RTW duming down of the AI made it better. But it's still not good, it was more a less bad solution. The primitive, cluttered, and counter intuetive battle interface, left click movement and every thing you can do right there on the screen is so 1997.

AoE III is 1997!!!
Nothing changed... No innovation, same childish peasant managment dumped down non existant "combat", thanks god they have their 10 years of marketing brainwash imposing a 12 years' olds mentality to 30+ grown ups who still persume clickfest basebuilding and shortcut memorising as the pinnacle of tactical and strategic thought by developing "complex" "tactics" online...
And the main point here isnt AI's weakness on the campaign map (which is significant) where it can get the extra cash and throw armies, its the dump battle field AI where even if it cheats this cant help, WHY? Because the tactical battle is VERY variable, there are no rules (like in soccer games) and the complexity of it is what the RTW's AI cant come up to...
The difference is that many here are not playing RTW to get the same entertaiment that Burnout or Mario provides thats why they say its AI is bad.
You enjoy RTW thats YOUR opinion, YOU think that its AI is good, but in matters of facts my opinion and yours doesnt matter since they wont change the reality...

Hellenes

Viking
11-26-2005, 19:55
Complex does not = better any more than simpler = better. However, when discussing something competitive when we say one side is better, it is because they are more likely to win. Rarely would someone call an 0-15 team "better" than an 8-7 team...

Again, it has to do with what you compare. The looser team might be better in one area, whatever that be, than the winner team(the RTW AI is better at loosing than the MTW AI....heck, I`m backing out of this discussion).

demon rob
11-27-2005, 05:47
Why would anyone play STW and MTW and just play the strategic map? It was there to add meaning to the battles, but standalone as a game it wasn't enough.

Ludens
11-27-2005, 13:53
I have played all three games, but I haven't tested R:TW 1.3 much because I couldn't find the time for playing. I may or may not get BI, but since time is still an issue I don't think I will be getting it soon.

R:TW is a good game with fantastic graphics, but there are a number of shortcomings that annoy many veterans of the TW series. A.I. is one of them: the computer does not perform adequately either on the strategic map or on the battle map. Neither M:TW nor S:TW A.I. were very bright on the battlefield either, but they could put up a decent fight in which there was little room for mistake, and that without cheating. The R:TW A.I. simply does not do that. Its positioning is hopeless and it quite often fails to make its units support each other. This may have to do with combat model and movement speed, but I am judging the A.I. on the challenge it puts up, not on its programming, and the R:TW A.I. comes out last there. These are its main failings compared to M:TW, there are many more minor ones.

Combat model works both ways: its more complex and realistic, but I don't agree with some of the design choices. Flank and rear attacks are overly effective (though 1.3 improves this) and height gives little advantage. Combat resolution is a little too fast for my taste.

On the strategic the A.I. is not that good either. Strategic A.I. never was very good in the TW series and I think the complexity of the R:TW map only exposed its failings even more. I like the beautiful new map and the possibilities it offers, but the (lack of) A.I. spoils it for me. The connection between strategic map and battle map landscape is nice, but the battle maps are often plain affairs dominated by one hill or one forest. Perhaps this is good, because the A.I. doesn't utilize the terrain properly, but I think it boring. Diplomacy is pathetic, but then it always was in TW. The Naval model is different, but still unsatisfactory.

The interface (both in and out of battles) is a definite improvement, especially if you use minimal_UI. Music is very good as well, and I don't think the graphics need any comments. My main issues are stupid A.I. and too fast combat. However, I still had many hours of fun playing it, and I consider it a good game that, unfortunately, wastes much potential by being too fast and not clever enough.

All in all, it is a good game, but I had more pleasure and challenge playing M:TW. And I haven't even tried all good M:TW mods out there yet!

Just A Girl
11-27-2005, 14:15
1.3 Allows me to actualy play RTW 1ce a month or so now, Where as i couldnt play at all before,
Many complain of a memory leak That i am lucky enough not to suffer from ,
1.3 IMHO Adresses some of the Minor problems people had with the game,
Fixes a little bit on cav speed and Flanking charges,
Attacks from the rear arent quite as devistating as they were in v1.0
But with the inadequate Ai battles are over Quickly,
But i would not call them fast,
With Masses of thinking time I find the battles slow and slugish,
With just enough time for you to go round and look at all the pretty pictures.
before yove won a heroic victory,
"Battle was slow and slugish and then it was over in a second"

Ive started playing NTW for MTW VI,
Its a good mod although I think some things wrong with mine and my men keep dissapearing from the battle field "well they turn invisable but there still there,

Personally i like the mtw vi economy on the strat map the most out of the entier serize
"cant rate BI havent bought it yet"

I still prefer the classic STW / MTW battle controlls. and HUD/GUI battle display, More than RTW.
i can understand how some could maby prefer the RTW controlls but there a bit ailien to me.

I guess its cos i played STW from day of release And Then i played MTW
then they changed everything,
Maby theres an option to get the old controlls back for RTW,
but i really doubt CA would have been that thoughtfull towards their customers.

Orda Khan
11-27-2005, 14:36
So many experts.
Whatever any of you think is YOUR OPINION. That the AI was so good in MTW I find hilarious. I could destroy armies that outnumbered me 4 or 5 to 1....That's supposed to be good? Missile units were not used well by the AI in MTW either.
I suggest some of you run a custom test in RTW/BI. Face a Hun army and then come back and post that the AI is crap in RTW or BI

......Orda

lars573
11-27-2005, 15:03
So many experts.
Whatever any of you think is YOUR OPINION. That the AI was so good in MTW I find hilarious. I could destroy armies that outnumbered me 4 or 5 to 1....That's supposed to be good? Missile units were not used well by the AI in MTW either.
I suggest some of you run a custom test in RTW/BI. Face a Hun army and then come back and post that the AI is crap in RTW or BI

......Orda
Most of them refuse to get BI. So your barking up the wrong tree there.


Why would anyone play STW and MTW and just play the strategic map? It was there to add meaning to the battles, but standalone as a game it wasn't enough.
If you hate the battles to the point you won't play them the strat game is all you have. Hence why I don't rever MTW as the best of the TW series.

Red Harvest
11-27-2005, 18:05
So many experts.
Whatever any of you think is YOUR OPINION. That the AI was so good in MTW I find hilarious. I could destroy armies that outnumbered me 4 or 5 to 1....That's supposed to be good? Missile units were not used well by the AI in MTW either.
I suggest some of you run a custom test in RTW/BI. Face a Hun army and then come back and post that the AI is crap in RTW or BI

......Orda
An opinion can be poorly supported or even conflict with itself...as with Lars' basis for saying that RTW had superior AI.

I've never seen Huns in RTW. ~:rolleyes: I won't see them at all until/unless I see a good patch for RTW.

I've wiped out many armies heavily outnumbered in RTW...so I fail to see your point. The difference was that in MTW I had a very difficult time with armies of similar quality to mine if I was outnumbered, in RTW I don't.

Regardless of your opinion on it, I've tested missile units in MTW and RTW back-to-back some time ago. MTW did a better job of actually using its missile force in battle. Unfortunately 1.3 seems to have actually made the RTW AI even worse with missile units than it was previously. I've seen a number of instances where it failed to engage with longer range missile units, while I stood peppering said unit with a *shorter* range unit. It simply doesn't know how to fight a ranged battle or pre-battle.

In MTW the archers were likely to start out forward, exchanging missile vollies or peppering infantry (as they should). In RTW they don't--of course the initial default formations chosen by CA with ranged/skirmish units in the rear are partially at fault (and ahistorical in that regard.) By the time RTW advances its missile units through the line, I've ripped it a new one--simply by using historical tactics. It "helps" that the RTW AI does it piecemeal.

Worse than that, the RTW AI likes to throw the archers into melee rather than holding them back peppering targets as MTW did.

The horse archer AI has advanced in some aspects in RTW (Parthian shot) which is probably responsible for your enthusiasm. However, that is a small aspect of RTW overall (and I haven't seen the AI use CC in 1.3, and very little before that--CC is just another tool for the human to clobber the AI.) Horse archers were a challenge in MTW...those mongols produced a lot of attrition unless I had sufficient longer range arbalesters to wipe them out.

However, I will also point out that RTW is worse with horse javelins than was MTW. Jinnette's gave me all sorts of grief in MTW, can't say the same for horse javs in RTW. One of the problems with the skirmish code is that RTW tries to chase off your skirmisher with units like horse javelins or foot javelins. If you back them with infantry/spears, and turn off skirmish mode, the RTW AI will suicide itself into your line. There is nothing cheesy about doing this on the player's side, it is a straightforward use of skirmishers with the intent of making an exchange. What is cheese is that the AI is going for a stunt of chasing a ranged unit away without it firing. To defeat this "exploit" by the AI you simply turn off "skirmish" at which point the AI commits suicide. Brilliant move by the AI. Here is an idea...actually use the ranged attack. :idea3: This large flaw was apparent in the demo. I still remember the excellent cartoon someone made back then of the velites and carthaginian skirmishers fleeing one another without actually firing.

hellenes
11-27-2005, 18:17
Well I guess im not "most" of us...
Two battles VH Hun vs ERE and Hun vs WRE:
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/Replay/BI_owned....rpy
Well as you ll see Ive done plenty mistakes wich would cost me dreadly in MP but SP...~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:
http://www.totalwar.org/Downloads/Rtw_Uploads/Replay/BI_owned...2.rpy
~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker: ~:joker:

BI "AI"...

Hellenes

Orda Khan
11-27-2005, 18:28
I've wiped out many armies heavily outnumbered in RTW...so I fail to see your point. The difference was that in MTW I had a very difficult time with armies of similar quality to mine if I was outnumbered, in RTW I don't.
My point was simple....I did not see a tremendous challenge in MTW either.

The horse archer AI has advanced in some aspects in RTW (Parthian shot) which is probably responsible for your enthusiasm. However, that is a small aspect of RTW overall (and I haven't seen the AI use CC in 1.3, and very little before that--CC is just another tool for the human to clobber the AI.) Horse archers were a challenge in MTW...those mongols produced a lot of attrition unless I had sufficient longer range arbalesters to wipe them out.

Yes the HA has come along quite a bit, but it is not this alone that impressed me so much as the AI ability to use the Hun army well. It attacked in waves, using the HA to harass both frontally and to the flanks. The shock cav was used in disruptive attacks and the infantry, which always seemed elusive, managed to meet up and attack the weak point. In the meantime the HA became chasers and attacked weak areas also. All in all, an excellent example and yes, they did perform Cantabrian Circle.....Not en masse but at least 2 HA units in front of my line did so. The rest were just everywhere

.....Orda

DensterNY
11-28-2005, 15:48
Well, Orda Khan the Huns just arrived at my doorsteps as the WRE in RTW:BI so I look forward to facing a worthy adversary. From what you described that is the kind of enemy that makes the Total War game, IMHO, the best war series on the market.

There is nothing like fighting a good long battle where you wits are tested, you find yourself numerous times on the verge of defeat and only through risky and audacious tactics you pull off a victory. I believe that is the reason why so many MTW veterans, like myself, are so attached to that game because it challenges you continually. BI restores some of this but Rome was certainly a big step away which is not wrong at all just confusing to a number of the TW fan base.

I personally enjoy all of the TW games but when I play either MTW or RTW it will depend upon my mood and what I'm looking for... sometimes you want to play chess and sometimes you want checkers.

Puzz3D
11-28-2005, 17:10
My point was simple....I did not see a tremendous challenge in MTW either.
There was more challenge in MTW and even more in STW because the tactical AI in all three games is designed for a rock, paper, scissors system. RTW has the weakest RPS system, and the AI is not as well suited to it. RTW also reduced the bonus associated with height, so the AI no longer recognizes height as an advantage on most maps. The RTW AI also makes frontal charges with weaker units, and that is something it never did in STW or MTW. This is probably the reason the AI sometimes charges into melee with ranged units instead of shooting. The RTW AI also uses some infantry units as though they are cavalry trying to disengage them from melee so they can charge again which is devastating to the unit since the men get hacked from behind which is almost a sure kill. The RTW AI also runs its units to exhaustion more readily than it did in the previous games. This is a severe disadvantage for the AI unless it's defending or using mostly cavalry. I've had to turn off fatigue in RTW so that I don't have a huge advantage over the AI in battles where the AI is the attacker. The RTW v1.3 AI doesn't throw its pila. In STW, the tactical AI would set up ambushes by hiding units in trees separate from it's main force and charing out after the main forces were engaged. I've never seen the RTW AI do that.

I have seen the two phase attack in several battles against the RTW v1.3 AI, and that is a very good tactic for the AI when it has the stronger army. It caught me off-guard the first time the AI used it, but not since.


Yes the HA has come along quite a bit, but it is not this alone that impressed me so much as the AI ability to use the Hun army well.
It doesn't use a phalanx army well. Also, Red Harvest has already pointed out how skirmishers have to be kept behind the melee infantry.

Just A Girl
11-28-2005, 17:42
in mtw. If i set up cannons so they faced 1 way,
You know for a fact that the AI would find away to get to me without walking in front of them,
In RTW. theyl just stand there geting stoned to pieces.
(Stoned= to be pelted or beaten by stones and rocks)

However,
ALL the TW games AI are absolutley Useless when it comes to them geting shot,

in STW,
Playing at awa."bridge" vs the ai, Ai is defending.
You can shoot over the river, In to the AI's ranks.
And they just wont moove, Also they let the back kills, kill most of there units.

IN mtw.
Attacking the AI again.
You can shoot at them with catapults and stuff, and they will stand there 1/2 a mile away geting clobbered,
and then they may decide to reinforce their lines. And stick More units in to the area being bombarded.

And then in RTW.
They seemed to have taken these 2 annoyances, Magnyfied them, Then told the ai How to run back and forth on a bridge whilst it gets peppered with arrows,

I supose if i refused to use ranged units in any of my games The AI would become Very dificult to beat, In MTW expeshialy.
I may try that some time :)

:bow:

EDIT,
Was a little Bit of an "EVERYTHING I CAN THINK ABOUT DISSCUSING IN RTW SUX" post by me again,
It wasnt sposed to be i just got carried away So ive edited it now,

Alexander the Pretty Good
11-28-2005, 23:23
I will say that HA's in RTW/BI are a lot better, with moving and shooting and a better skirmish system.

Which is porbably why Orda's so happy. ~:)

Kaldhore
11-29-2005, 04:52
I wish people would not try to glorify the MTW & STW AIs compared to RTW & BI. ALL of the AIs in ALL 3 instalments AND the Expansions are basically crap.

Its all Paper - rock - sissors (sp?)...

Dont tell me STW Ai is better cos I beat the game the first day it came out.
MTW was actually more demanding then STW because of the amount of differing types of units - but basically the same AI. I used to have 1 stack of nicely selected troops beat the Huns on their arrival - all in one go.
RTW is easy ASWELL - no more or less - but in my op exactly the same.

Everyone is talking of individual experiences on the battlefield to * out do* and *prove the other guy wrong* - but at the end of it all we all knew the trick after a game or so and so ALL the AIs were bad - unsurprising and only a challenge if u handicapped yourself.

Arty in MTW was badly done - the AI wasnt superior, they didnt manouvre out of range or in the flank - I remember taking a cannon to many battles and shooting the general till he kamikazied my line. In RTW - ok he doesnt move all the time but I dont think charging the line is BETTER AI.

Face it guys, you will have your favourites, but please dont try to make out the AI was better in ANY TW game....

Just A Girl
11-29-2005, 05:01
I wish people would not try to glorify the MTW & STW AIs compared to RTW & BI. ALL of the AIs in ALL 3 instalments AND the Expansions are basically crap.

Its all Paper - rock - sissors (sp?)...

Dont tell me STW Ai is better cos I beat the game the first day it came out.
MTW was actually more demanding then STW because of the amount of differing types of units - but basically the same AI. I used to have 1 stack of nicely selected troops beat the Huns on their arrival - all in one go.
RTW is easy ASWELL - no more or less - but in my op exactly the same.

Everyone is talking of individual experiences on the battlefield to * out do* and *prove the other guy wrong* - but at the end of it all we all knew the trick after a game or so and so ALL the AIs were bad - unsurprising and only a challenge if u handicapped yourself.

Arty in MTW was badly done - the AI wasnt superior, they didnt manouvre out of range or in the flank - I remember taking a cannon to many battles and shooting the general till he kamikazied my line. In RTW - ok he doesnt move all the time but I dont think charging the line is BETTER AI.

Face it guys, you will have your favourites, but please dont try to make out the AI was better in ANY TW game....

Lol be glad you didnt get here before i edited my post,

Puzz3D
11-29-2005, 16:33
Its all Paper - rock - sissors (sp?)...
Of course it's rock, paper, scissors (RPS). Creative Assembly said they designed it to be that way. The battle AI is designed to work within an RPS system, and STW had the strongest RPS. I've certainly done enough tests that show the battle AI makes the proper matchups in STW and MTW, and it doesn't in RTW. In RTW, the AI makes frontal charges with units that are weaker than the target unit. It never did that in STW or MTW. The battle AI is less suited to using ranged units, but it does select good targets when shooting.



Dont tell me STW Ai is better cos I beat the game the first day it came out.
I doubt you beat original STW the first day. That campaign was very difficult to win because the strategic AI had unlimited money to spend. I recently went back and played some original STW campaign, and the battlefield AI set up ambushes several times with part of its army. I've never seen the RTW battlefield AI do that. The AI uses height better in STW/MTW than it does in RTW. Original STW didn't have artillery, and guns were relatively weak which is better for the AI since it doesn't take into consideration potential losses from ranged units. All units were 60 men in original STW which is better suited to the morale system that the game uses.

I played original STW campaign for 3 months, and then left that behind and played multiplayer for several years. When RTW came out, multiplayer was so bad that I played the RTW campaign. The battles were really bad up until RTW v1.3 was released. With the AI consolidating its armies on the strategic map in RTW v1.3, and the improvement of the RPS on the battlefield along with the reduction of the tendency for the general to suicide himself, I find RTW much improved. Of course, you have to overlook a few problems introduced by v1.3, and you have to play with fatigue turned off.

Orda Khan
11-29-2005, 17:59
The roaming horde stacks of Huns are not going to be a tremendous struggle by any means because they are basically weak units. Throughout the late 4th C the Huns that destroyed all before them were certainly not herdsmen and spears. Their armies were battle hardened cavalry and should have been reflected this way but alas, it was not. Later, under Attila they had effective seigecraft and a strong infantry presence with Germanic nations such as Ostrogoths and Gepids included in their armies. A 'more realistic' army of Hunnic Archers, Hunnic Elite and Lancers or Heavy cavalry would provide a real threat unlike the sorry excuse that is present in the SP campaign.

With regards to the AI........STW was IMO the best so far and it did set ambushes. If I remember correctly, it also used its archers to some effect.
This was definitely not the case in MTW where the Crossbows wandered about aimlessly behind the lines, maybe shooting the odd volley here and there. However, the MTW AI General DID charge headlong into overwhelming odds. I witnessed this many times.

The Hun battle I described was a 3v3 AI Hun versus human ERE, both sides with realistic/more acceptable/more believable armies and they pushed us to the limit. The AI did a great job of combining 3 armies into wave attacks and although our infantry was stronger, and being Roman, was well equipped with missiles as well, the outcome only became clear at the end

........Orda

DensterNY
11-29-2005, 18:04
Well perhaps saying that the AI is better in earlier TW games is incorrect because its basically the same game engine. However, CA has changed the dynamics of battle which previously worked as a guideline for army assembly and attack orders for the AI.

What Just-A-Girl meant by the rock-paper-scissors comment was that in MTW there was advantages in meeting one type of unit with a certain other kind. If the enemy unit was cavalry you would want to attack them with a spear unit since you got horse bonuses, likewise sword units get bonuses against spears in melee (unless spears were in phalanx). The AI calculating where to deploy its troops would generally follow these guidelines in previous TW as opposed to Rome where they just attack any unit of enemy with whatever they have available. Its not that its stupid its just there's no reason to do otherwise since the bonuses don't seem to apply.

Second, the height advantage which has been eliminated also strips the AI of some rhyme or reason when it comes to troop deployment and army positioning. In MTW, as a defender you always try to find yourself at the highest point you could because your archers would fire further and do more damage and your infantry got higher charge and fighting bonuses from a higher position. As an attacker when you assault such an army you had to sacrifice a heavily armored unit to absorb arrows in a frontal assault or find creative ways to bring the defender out of their position. In Rome, I guess having no real advantage in positioning the AI might as well charge you head on...even if it is the defending party.

If you could put these two dynamics back into Rome and if the AI calculated logically according to advantage and disadvantage I bet you that most of the complaints would be silenced.

And yes, you will of course overcome this and learn to beat the revamped AI after a dozen fights or so but you will still have to do so utilizing tried and true military tactics and not just because the AI doesn't seem to know how to utilize its army.

IceTorque
11-29-2005, 20:44
RTW's AI in many ways is improved over previous TW games IMO,
But these improvements only become obvious when the game is modded.

i.e. Remove the weaker units available to the AI and place an emphasis on
melee infantry units to minimize the AI's inability to use ranged units correctly.
and adjust unit stats to be equal allowing for more realistic advantages of morale, experience and terrain only. also adjusting unit stats for longer battles and deeper unit ranks.

The deeper unit ranks are necessary for the AI to form a solid battle line and to allow the AI to manouver it's units more efficiently without having the edges of a unit clipping a non-intended target and becoming stuck in melee before it reaches it's destination.

With the above tweaks the AI will create stacks of mostly infantry with only a few units of ranged and cav units.
and using standard formations and deep unit ranks the AI forms a nice battle line and attacks enmasse.
Which to me is a more accurate represntation of what i have read of actual battles.

i.e. The player must match the width of the AI's battle line to avoid
flank(s) being overlapped, if you have less units than the AI. forcing the player to stretch their battle line to match the AI's and thus weakening the centre, (chiefly British variant of CENTER)
Also the AI likes to keep a reserve unit or two to counter the players reserve.
Only committing these reserves when needed, this i like very much.

On the downside the AI too often will expose it's reserve unit(s) backside to
ranged fire. Will not effectivley take advantage of terrain features although these are few and far between on the generic battlemaps.

Strat map: The AI once again can be improved with simple tweaks to terrain to direct the AI into common corridors to keep it's armies more concentrated.
Also modding settlements to be more advanced at game start to help the AI to have strong economies and to stop it from draining small settlements of their population before they get a chance to develop.

Another necessary tweak is to restrict factions recruitment of units to it's homelands only. To eliminate the snowball effect and to allow for the game to become more progressively difficult by emulating the age old military problem of extended supply lines.
With the only exception being the ability of recruiting auxiliary units from conquered capitols only.
The above tweaks allow for the game to develop into several major powers and not one super power producing countless armies per turn.

My biggest complaint with RTW's battles is unit behaviour. To me they act more like a pack of drunks and not a well trained army.
i.e. when changing direction they will mill about, clump together, drown themselves on bridge battles, get stretched out with the entire unit going in to attack mode with just a few of the unit actually engaged with the enemy,
not to mention the dreaded unit stacking, taking too long to throw it's pila, to name but some.

Strat map complaints Too small no sense of scale, too much to do having to manually move diplomats, spies and assassins.
How i miss the drag and drop onto to an agents target of previous TW games.
I especially miss the diplomacy system in STW.
Also some settlements are too close together forcing too many siege battles.

I have incorporated the above tweaks combined with a very large scale strat map. Regions size in pixels is 510 x 337.
For camparison: vanilla 255 x 156 and mundus magnus 384 x 234.

The Mod is called WarMap v1.0 it is for RTW v1.3 and should be available for download from the TWC downloads section in a few days. In case anyone is interested.

Red Harvest sums it up best.
"Rome Total War, it's not a game, it's a do-it-yourself project.

econ21
11-30-2005, 07:38
Are people sure that the height modifiers are less in RTW? I used to think that, but when I started to fight more challenging SP battles, I began to rely on them more. They certainly seem to help ranged weapons a lot and IIRC, can give real oomph to a downhill charge.

CountMRVHS
11-30-2005, 11:57
I don't know what to think about height modifiers anymore. 2 days ago I was playing my 1.3 Brutii campaign, fighting a battle on what LOOKED like a fairly flat battle map. I moused over the defending Julii army and saw that they were "happy to be on the hill". Hill?!? What hill?? Granted, there may have been a tiny slope involved, but it seemed a bit ridiculous. I guess I always assumed the height bonus had to come in from a somewhat substantial hill....

CountMRVHS

Ciaran
11-30-2005, 13:35
[...]
I have incorporated the above tweaks combined with a very large scale strat map. Regions size in pixels is 510 x 337.
For camparison: vanilla 255 x 156 and mundus magnus 384 x 234.

The Mod is called WarMap v1.0 it is for RTW v1.3 and should be available for download from the TWC downloads section in a few days. In case anyone is interested. [...]


Sounds interesting, but what is incorporated in the map? The old vanilla map on a smaller scale (smaller scale -> distance looks larger)? And bear in mind that, according to Jerome, the AI has difficulties with settlements more than fifty pixels apart from each other.

IceTorque
11-30-2005, 16:19
Sounds interesting, but what is incorporated in the map? The old vanilla map on a smaller scale (smaller scale -> distance looks larger)? And bear in mind that, according to Jerome, the AI has difficulties with settlements more than fifty pixels apart from each other.

The map is built from scratch.
The no more than 50 pixels between settlements rule has been applied.
Map size has been increased almost entirely by scale only, with slight extensions to allow for scotland/scandinavia in the north and bactria in the east.

Many extra settlements have been added but is still far from the 200 settlement limit.
Placement and ownership of settlements are designed to give all factions an equal chance, and to promote field battles.
Movement points/traits for naval and land units have been enhanced to allow for the large scale of the map.
Land bridges/crossable straights are incorporated into the map to assist the AI in expanding/providing more of a challenge to the player.

A homeland and capitol city ZOR which:
1.stops the snowball effect
2.Allows the game to develop into one with several major powers and not one superpower producing/spamming countless armies per turn.
3.Simulates extended supply lines.
4.Promotes the need to use strategy.
5.Elite units don't die off with their factions demise they simply fight for their new masters.
e.g. Whoever controls the Greek cities capitol Sparta are able to recruit spartans.
Settlements begin at an advanced level to allow the AI to compete/challenge the player, and to promote a faster game opening.

The essence of this mod is to merely provide a level playing field by eliminating/minimizing many of the AI's weaknesses, exploits, and to showcase how good IMO the AI in RTW really is.

I hope this answers your questions and keeps your interest.

~:cheers:

Red Harvest
11-30-2005, 21:24
Are people sure that the height modifiers are less in RTW? I used to think that, but when I started to fight more challenging SP battles, I began to rely on them more. They certainly seem to help ranged weapons a lot and IIRC, can give real oomph to a downhill charge.
I don't know what the relative strength of the height modifiers is between the two games. There certainly are some height modifiers in RTW, but the AI does not seem to make good use of the effect. I do, however.

Similar with trees and such. The AI doesn't seem to make use of the trees for shelter from missile attack.

Kaldhore
12-01-2005, 05:47
If you zoom in on the map then take a horizontal pan view around you will see hills. Even on medium zoom out - the hills are less aparent.

Figured this out yesterday as I got that message too that my troops were feeling *safe on the hill* - I thought what goddamn hill?? - zoomed in took a look around and noticed it..

Edit:- And to the guy who doubts I beat STW on the first day I got it (Almost the day of release), sorry if you couldnt beat it - but after a few battles the AI was all too aparent and easily beatable, even with the infinite funds..

demon rob
12-01-2005, 05:52
If you hate the battles to the point you won't play them the strat game is all you have. Hence why I don't rever MTW as the best of the TW series.

But if thats the case then why did you keep buying the series? Thats what I cant understand.
Buy a different series that emphasises the strategic - civ, galciv, europa series, etc.


and onto the topic of AI,
STW and MTW could provide a challenge, but Rome cannot.
We all played MTW to death - by then it was no longer a challenge, even after wesmod extended its life.
We hoped Rome would expand on MTW and be a bigger challenge.
It wasnt. Thats why we are dissapointed with it. Its a nice shiny backward step in challenge.

and enough from me, I'm back to Civ4 where my culteral victory is down the gurgler to an unexpected invasion. Now there I have a challenge.

Puzz3D
12-01-2005, 12:59
Edit:- And to the guy who doubts I beat STW on the first day I got it (Almost the day of release), sorry if you couldnt beat it - but after a few battles the AI was all too aparent and easily beatable, even with the infinite funds..
Which STW did you buy? The second version, Warlord Edition, was easier than the first. Which faction did you play? Some factions were easier to play than others. Did you have better generals than the AI factions? If you had good enough generals, you would just walk over AI armies.

Just A Girl
12-01-2005, 13:15
I could not win a battle In origional STW for about a month,
But then again i always play my games on Hardest / V hard settings.

Otherwize they dont last as long as i want them to for the money i spent,

I still dont see how you could have finished Origional shogun on The1st day you bought it,
Unless you played on V easy,
had vids off,
Didnt go to throne room,
Used the .koku. cheat
Was really lucky that your King "daimo" or sumthing. Did not die,
And auto calked.

Orda Khan
12-01-2005, 16:16
But if thats the case then why did you keep buying the series? Thats what I cant understand.
Buy a different series that emphasises the strategic - civ, galciv, europa series, etc..
On the same note though, for all the detractors of RTW, if the game is that bad just stop playing it, as you have. Why keep on and on about how bad the game is? To me it seems pointless

....Orda

hellenes
12-01-2005, 17:16
On the same note though, for all the detractors of RTW, if the game is that bad just stop playing it, as you have. Why keep on and on about how bad the game is? To me it seems pointless

....Orda

0 competition...
There is NO game like TW...NOPE NADA NO...
Its a beakon of strategy in mids of clickfest childish RTS darkness...

Hellenes

Just A Girl
12-01-2005, 17:25
On the same note though, for all the detractors of RTW, if the game is that bad just stop playing it, as you have. Why keep on and on about how bad the game is? To me it seems pointless

....Orda

Becous new players and people who dont know better would get conned in to thinking this game is perfect if The 1s that disslike it dont make them selfs heard,

In all probabilaty.
If people stoped saying rtw is the greates,
then others could very well stop saying its not that good,

However its not going to happen,

People have there oppinions,
And here they have a place to voice them,

And Although you may not like that people who disslike the game are alowed to say what they think,
It is indeed fair to all.

:bow:

Red Harvest
12-01-2005, 17:38
On the same note though, for all the detractors of RTW, if the game is that bad just stop playing it, as you have. Why keep on and on about how bad the game is? To me it seems pointless

....Orda

That is a bit dishonest isn't it? Criticism is pointless if it doesn't produce any improvement, but the complaints here have not been intended to trash the game, but in an effort to see it improved. CA has taken some steps toward improving things (and introduced a bunch of new bugs.) If they hadn't been continuing to work on the series, I wouldn't be here and few others would be either. (Need I remind of the 1.2 horse archer bug?) What boggles most of us is how the makers of STW/MTW could lose so much ground play wise with the next iteration in the series.

Fact is, some of us came back to see what was said about BI, and to see if the 1.3 RTW patch fixed some problems. Most of us did stop playing back with 1.2, but we checked in periodically. Some of us tried 1.3 and have commented on it. At least we actually try running the battles. And those of us complaining certainly don't "suck" at the battles.

Look around these boards, RTW/BI are not generating much buzz anymore. BI's buzz level here (and on the official boards) is really quite weak. It looks like only a few veterans have even adopted it. Many of the hardcore modders and interested folks simply gave up on RTW. People are moving on because the hook of previous releases is not there. Perhaps you would rather be surrounded by console kiddies, but I would rather have grognards expressing interest in the game and trying to improve it.

I've seen what happens when gamers do as you advocate: the gamers resign themselves to the game not being improved, they lose interest, and they drift away. Future releases are received less enthusiastically and the series dies not with a bang, but a whimper.

DensterNY
12-01-2005, 18:01
On the same note though, for all the detractors of RTW, if the game is that bad just stop playing it, as you have. Why keep on and on about how bad the game is? To me it seems pointless

....Orda

Well Orda Khan, I guess its a love/hate relationship.

I think demon rob summarized the frustration best when he said: "We all played MTW to death - by then it was no longer a challenge, even after wesmod extended its life. We hoped Rome would expand on MTW and be a bigger challenge. It wasnt. Thats why we are dissapointed with it. Its a nice shiny backward step in challenge."

I personally still love Rome despite its shortcomings and hope that some of them will be addressed with future mods or expansion packs. Also, I think to address my fix for challenging battles I'll try and explore multi-player combat cause honestly no amount of code can compare to human creativity, cunning, guile, gut-instinct and deception. (On the battlefield that is ~;p )

Orda Khan
12-01-2005, 18:07
Red Harvest......I do take a look around here and strangely I see the same people saying basically the same thing, over and over and over. As for trashing the game, come off it. Do you honestly mean to tell me that no trashing has gone on? That all the criticism has been constructive?

Just a Girl/Shambles
How many times do you need to voice an opinion?

Who ever got the idea that I think RTW is perfect? Have I ever said that?

There are innumerous new players who are probably enjoying the game and many, if not the majority of them, are blissfully unaware of .Org

.......Orda

Red Harvest
12-01-2005, 18:18
If you go to the .com you see the same thing, Orda, general lack of enthusiasm. There have always had more of the "blissfully unaware" types, yet they still show evidence of the same problem.

Just A Girl
12-01-2005, 18:43
Just a Girl/Shambles
How many times do you need to voice an opinion?

Who ever got the idea that I think RTW is perfect? Have I ever said that?

There are innumerous new players who are probably enjoying the game and many, if not the majority of them, are blissfully unaware of .Org

.......Orda

You yourself are voicing same oppinion's Repetedly,
I guess its only ok to do so if your saying Good things about the game,

Aslong as a post is made which contradicts others belefes, Then there will be Posts made to opose what they say,

This is how it goes on.
As you can see.


P.s

Whats so bad about my inital post ?


you may or may not know About how easily RTW agrivates me,

But it will eventualy grow on you given time,
I find my self playing a hour or so of the stratagy part of rtw every week or so now,
So it cant be all that bad,
However MTW still dominates my Single player game time,
And STW just takes almost all of my mp gaming time,

So although i dont like RTW, and Initialy hated it,
I do ocoasionaly find time to play a hour or so here and there,
The stratmap really is quite good,
The economics of the game is quite like MTW with taxes and stuff,
I personaly Aprove of the way You are deployed in a battle Depending on where you were on the strat map when you were engaged.

The Naval part is difrent to mtw, But not that much difrent (id say MTW was better with that part)

The Ai is prety sleepy in battles if you compare it to STW, if your comparing it to MTW, Its not that bad.

It may not be your fave game in your pile of games, But i doubt it will be your worse,

One word of warning though i think that the minimum display For battles is 1024x768 and min for Strat map is 2048x1536

Im prety shure thats the case But i may be wrong,
This causes a problem for me as iI use a tv set not a monitor,
So the writing is To small to read on the Stratagy map,
(kind of agrivates me a little 2)

If you find it for a reasonable price i dont see why any 1 would not buy it.

Hope this helps your decision

oh
P.s
Cavalry can bearly catch fleeing archers In RTW,
The things are broken or something


I see nothing wrong with My inital post,
Its Honest, And its not making the game sound As good as some Try to say it is,

to tell you the truth i dont know what your origional problem with this thread is.

A question was asked and people answered in there honest oppinnion,
Why has an argument Occured?

Did i miss some 1 taking an overly agressive stance towards some 1 elses belefs?
Or is this Just geting blown out of all preprtion becous some people beleve the game to be better/worse than others beleve it to be?

:bow:

demon rob
12-01-2005, 21:41
yeah, just like red and the others said,
we come back, less and less often, hoping Rome will be improved enough to be playable. 1.3 was a big hope, but ended up a dud. If 1.5 ever gets here maybe we will give it a go too.
Sure, some people like playing an AI that can't fight back (hi killemall!) but it doesn't really hold our interest that much.
As a battle simulation the TW series is the best attempt out there (so far), but Rome wasn't the step forward we were after.

Plus its worth coming here just to read some of the entertaining threads, like this one!

IceTorque
12-02-2005, 06:19
I agree with all the above. ~:grouphug:
Now even the most pessimistic among us would have to agree that,

1.It is a very big ask to expect Sega to fund more non-profit patches and possibly delay their next game no matter how much they may want to.
As they are in the business of making money and have share holders to answer to.
:hide:

2.Our complaints/suggestions have been well and truly heard,
and hopefully taken onboard.
:charge:

3.Conflicting opinions do make for interesting reading. :duel:

4.The only way we are ever going to experience our ultimate game of commanding full scale and realistic recreations of historys most famous battles is by supporting CA's TW series. And accept the fact that it is a work in progress.
As it seems that CA are the only ones with the funding and skills to give us what our little hearts desire.
~:handball:

I like to justify my purchase of RTW and BI as a small contribution to the ongoing development and continued success of this unique genre and IMO best game series available.
:bow:

littlebktruck
12-02-2005, 06:32
One good thing about RTW in my opinion is that the battlefield commands are miles better than MTW's. There are many times in MTW that I wished I didn't have to click on all the individual units. Also, you can move units regardless of intervening units because of the use of the right click. The campaign map, though, is quite annoying. Squalor gets out of control, rebels pop up randomly in your territory, and I tend to lose track of agents without more discrete movement.

Butcher
12-02-2005, 14:27
Hmm, well I haven’t even re-installed RTW after I got a new hard-drive etc 4 months ago. Haven’t had much enthusiasm for getting BI either.

Why?

Well, because I am still playing HOI2 (now on 1.3a and rising.. :)) and it is like MTW all over again: I can't get enough of it.

For whatever reason, RTW has not grabbed me. Maybe it is seeing the 'heroic victory' screen once to often. Maybe it's the never-ending sieges, or the fact that I have never felt I was going to lose, as the ai never consistently threatened me, even when I had virtually no troops in my cities.

It’s a pity, because I had wished that it was going to be great, it promised so much. It's not a bad game, but it is not as great as it's predecessor was at the time.

Now, back to defending Dover from the German hordes.. (now there’s an ai to write home about.. ;)).

If a 1.4 for RTW appears, then I’ll maybe have a look. Until then well, we shall see.

Just A Girl
12-03-2005, 11:16
Im Sick to the back teeth of this We cant expect "developer name" to fund a nother patch Bull.
Every Time CA release a game,
Some 1 comes and says, Cant expect them to make this game playable cos then they may not be able to release there next unfinished game,

Thats BUll.
All other companys manage to release a multitude of patches for there games untill there fixed,
Why is its That Any 1 accosiated With CA are said to be the 1s who wont let them patch it,
Its obvious that CA chose not to patch the games so they can release Addons/expantions That cost the same as the origional game did, to fix the problem.
IMHO I recon that gave EA a bad rep So they passed TW on to Activision, Now activision are getting the stick for CA's failures So next time Sega will get the Greiff.

Theve done it 3 times in a row now,
I have reported them to the trading standards When the Release of BI to fix bugs was announced,
Trading standards said that they would look in to the matter futher, And advised me to return the game.
They also said they would look for more complaints against CA.
So more complaints from people who feel the same as me Would not go amiss,


P.S

Icetourque

What are you..
Ca's Sales rep or sumthing?
It seems like you Came in here trying to Get people to say
"Well who cares that CA release unfinished games then dont care about end users,
Lets all buy there games and make them rich so they can Screw us over again with the next game,."

Every release some 1 like you says the same thing.
and Then you simply allow CA to run the same Scam again Knowing full well sheeple will blindly go buy there unfinished game That they will never finish.

Ludens
12-03-2005, 13:23
Im Sick to the back teeth of this We cant expect "developer name" to fund a nother patch Bull.
Every Time CA release a game,
Some 1 comes and says, Cant expect them to make this game playable cos then they may not be able to release there next unfinished game,

Thats BUll.
All other companys manage to release a multitude of patches for there games untill there fixed,
Why is its That Any 1 accosiated With CA are said to be the 1s who wont let them patch it,
Its obvious that CA chose not to patch the games so they can release Addons/expantions That cost the same as the origional game did, to fix the problem.
IMHO I recon that gave EA a bad rep So they passed TW on to Activision, Now activision are getting the stick for CA's failures So next time Sega will get the Greiff.
All other companies? There are plenty of badly or unsupported games out there. CA may not be the best when it comes to supporting (they are far from it), but they are certainly not the worst as you suggest.

Patching is not just up to the developper. The publisher has a say in it as well, since they usually do the QA. Big developpers like Blizzard can do it themselves, but CA isn't big. If they published a patch without QA the forum would be full of "Patch 1.3 broke my game again! $%^& CA!". So it is the developer who decides upon the number of patches. But for both previous games CA released a second patch because the community demanded it. For R:TW vanilla, we already have two patches (I don't count 1.1), and both solved many problems within the game. A developer hinted that there may be another patch for vanilla, something that SEGA is absolutely not obliged to do (why support a game that belongs to Activision?).

So please stop claiming CA does a bad job of supporting their games, because it is not just their job. They are far from perfect, but they have proved themselves willing to honour requests (or should I say demands? ) of the community, and should be given credit for that.

Even if their QA- and PR-departments leave something to be desired :sad: .

IceTorque
12-03-2005, 13:46
Just A Girl, I assure you I am no sales rep for CA. and I have posted many complaints about RTW, in fact the only reason i became an active member on this and other TW forums was to have a go at CA.

I respect your opinion and i merely wanted to express my opinion.
I apologize if I have offended you as that was not my intention.
~:cheers:

Just A Girl
12-03-2005, 15:29
Never took any offence from it,
But its not like they are incapable of producing a patch,
If they release another patch for rtw i may change my tune.
But i wouldnt be suprized if they ignore RTW now and concentrate on 2 patches for BI,
Then on to the next game.

Hopefully it wont be like that though,
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/images/smilies/misc/cheers.gif

hellenes
12-03-2005, 16:25
In a corporate world there are no excuses...
SO what that they are "small"? They go mainstream, they want sales, so they will be judged by mainstream and big sales standards...
Blizzard didnt create the blind fanboism out of nothing, any PC gamer knows that a Blizzard tag means: Patches, Support, Multiplayer... No disgusting "AI" dependancy (that the SP games are plagued with), No piracy headache since the game is so shallow in SP that a pirated copy isnt worth a penny.
I would call Blizzard the ONLY PC console developer they are the only ones to make so much money out of PC games that many console developers cant.
So the CA has a slight advantage ONLY in their monopoly of turn based realitime strategy games, thats why no matter how much we whine we all know that in the darkness of clickfest basebuilding shortcut build order memorising the TW series are the only source of light.

Hellenes

Kaldhore
12-04-2005, 03:29
Blizard just released a *patch* for world of warcraft that included a spybot to look through ALL your files on your PC - personal or not - to check for 3rd party hacker programs....

I value my privacy and hence have cancelled my account. The game was getting dull anyhow..

Thats the big good ol' Blizard..

demon rob
12-04-2005, 09:14
All ...but CA isn't big... .
CA is SEGA. SEGA is big. CA is big. They are the one entity now. How big do they need to be?

Ciaran
12-04-2005, 11:10
Are they? I mean, is Sega 100% shareholder of CA? Or is Sega simply their publisher?

hellenes
12-04-2005, 13:30
Blizard just released a *patch* for world of warcraft that included a spybot to look through ALL your files on your PC - personal or not - to check for 3rd party hacker programs....

I value my privacy and hence have cancelled my account. The game was getting dull anyhow..

Thats the big good ol' Blizard..

What did you expect them to do?
Its a MMORPG game, if they dont clean off the hackers none will play if its unfair...
You disagree but thats your opinion, if you were Blizzard you would do 100% the same thing.
Why do you think that Blizzard hasnt sold its soul to some kiddy console publisher?
Because they focus on Multiplayer, this way none can enjoy pirated copies of their game and most buy the original...
If you only knew how many copies of RTW were distributed over p2p network...

Hellenes

Ludens
12-04-2005, 14:26
CA is SEGA. SEGA is big. CA is big. They are the one entity now. How big do they need to be?
No, they are still seperate entities, even thoug SEGA now owns CA. Anyway, I fail to see how this counters my point it is SEGA who has the most say in whether there will be a new patch.

hellenes
12-04-2005, 20:27
No, they are still seperate entities, even thoug SEGA now owns CA. Anyway, I fail to see how this counters my point it is SEGA who has the most say in whether there will be a new patch.

SEGA-CA=ONE...PERIOD
If SEGA-CA Wants money, customer loyality and brand strength it must provide what is needed.
SEGA-CA is BIG, but that doesnt matter its the attitude, EA is big too can one compare it to Blizzard? Yes and the comparison shows the weakness of EA in support (General anyone?)...
Can one compare SEGA-CA and Blizzard games? Yes! SEGA-CA's games are better as concepts but not as execution and support, while Blizzard has better execution and support...
If SEGA-CA wants the NAME value that Blizzard has it must do what Blizzard did...

Hellenes

Captain Fishpants
12-05-2005, 11:46
As I've posted this over at .com this morning, I thought it might help your discussions to be told:

"Good news for those who like such things!

The patch is now being tested, which means that it will be available within a reasonable amount of time. I must stress that "reasonable" in this context means when it's ready, and not within days. There will be further announcements shortly as to what has been fixed."

Orda Khan
12-05-2005, 15:52
Thanks for the update Captain Fishpants

....Orda

Jochi Khan
12-05-2005, 16:36
The patch is now being tested, which means that it will be available within a reasonable amount of time. There will be further announcements shortly as to what has been fixed."

My thanks too.
Better a "reasonable amount of time" and a lot of the problems fixed. than to rush things and still have problems.

Jochi

Puzz3D
12-05-2005, 17:34
The patch is now being tested, which means that it will be available within a reasonable amount of time. I must stress that "reasonable" in this context means when it's ready, and not within days. There will be further announcements shortly as to what has been fixed."
This is very good new. Thx.

demon rob
12-06-2005, 01:32
Wow - a patch for MTW! He did mean Medieval didn't he?

hellenes
12-06-2005, 02:06
Wow - a patch for MTW! He did mean Medieval didn't he?

No its a patch for Shogun's demo...
just balancing stuff...

Hellenes

Kaldhore
12-06-2005, 04:59
What did you expect them to do?
Its a MMORPG game, if they dont clean off the hackers none will play if its unfair...
You disagree but thats your opinion, if you were Blizzard you would do 100% the same thing.
Why do you think that Blizzard hasnt sold its soul to some kiddy console publisher?
Because they focus on Multiplayer, this way none can enjoy pirated copies of their game and most buy the original...
If you only knew how many copies of RTW were distributed over p2p network...

Hellenes

I dont think you got my point. Blizzard is the Only company to use this type of spybot. Its can read anything including private emails on your pc. What if you share your pc? how can they have the *right* to view emails of someone that has nothing to do with the game. They cannot assume that the player owns the PC. If you value privacy then you wouldnt just accept that blizzard has a right to do this, because it doesnt just affect the player. what if I had truely private info in an email ? then they tell me they dont pass on the information to other people - so WHAT! Even the police have to ask you if you own the property and have proper legal authority before they can search your house.....how come a software company can search my sister pc just because her 12 yrs old kid *ticked* a EULA that everyone knows nobodies reads after blizzard throw one at you every month. I mean jeez I can hardly understand the EULA and Im 32, how can they expect a child of 12 to seriously and legally understand and sign for it.

Sorry if I sound harsh Im just mad people dont see whats happening, now they have done it - everyone will. This spybot is under investigation at least from the http://www.eff.org/about/

Read what they say about the Blizzard spybot here http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/004076.php

Rant over.

Ludens
12-06-2005, 12:54
SEGA-CA=ONE...PERIOD
If SEGA-CA Wants money, customer loyality and brand strength it must provide what is needed.
SEGA-CA is BIG, but that doesnt matter its the attitude, EA is big too can one compare it to Blizzard? Yes and the comparison shows the weakness of EA in support (General anyone?)...
Can one compare SEGA-CA and Blizzard games? Yes! SEGA-CA's games are better as concepts but not as execution and support, while Blizzard has better execution and support...
If SEGA-CA wants the NAME value that Blizzard has it must do what Blizzard did...
I feel getting dragged into a discussion about something I never intended to say. My point was that it was SEGA wo most likely decides whether a game is patched, and not CA. This to counter Just a Girl's statement that CA are too lazy to support their games, but the blame get put on the poor publishers. Off course he/she ignores that Activision has a bad rep for supporting games, and EA's is even worse.

Secondly, CA and Blizzard publish very different games: Starcraft/Warcraft are quite simple (but elegant) battlefield games (never played WoW) while the TW series is far more complex already on the battlefield. To that, CA adds a second, strategic layer, which is also very complex. So it is easy to say that Blizzard has better patches: there is far less that can go wrong in their games, so there is far less they have to patch. Most of the Blizzard patches I have downloaded where about balancing. Balancing Orks, Humans, Elves and Undead is also far easier than balancing Romans, Gauls, Britons, Germans, Iberians, Carthagians, Numidians, Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians, Dacians, Thracians, Scythians, Pontus, Armenians, Parthians and Seleucids.

I also think that much of Blizzard's brandname comes from having focussed on a balanced, simple and fast MP game that can also be played in SP. CA on the other hands thanks its name to a complex and (to some extent) historical tactical simulator that requires some more attention and cleverness than your average Blizzard title. So comparing them to Blizzard and saying that they have to do it the Blizzard-way is not entirely fair.

hellenes
12-06-2005, 15:28
I feel getting dragged into a discussion about something I never intended to say. My point was that it was SEGA wo most likely decides whether a game is patched, and not CA. This to counter Just a Girl's statement that CA are too lazy to support their games, but the blame get put on the poor publishers. Off course he/she ignores that Activision has a bad rep for supporting games, and EA's is even worse.

Secondly, CA and Blizzard publish very different games: Starcraft/Warcraft are quite simple (but elegant) battlefield games (never played WoW) while the TW series is far more complex already on the battlefield. To that, CA adds a second, strategic layer, which is also very complex. So it is easy to say that Blizzard has better patches: there is far less that can go wrong in their games, so there is far less they have to patch. Most of the Blizzard patches I have downloaded where about balancing. Balancing Orks, Humans, Elves and Undead is also far easier than balancing Romans, Gauls, Britons, Germans, Iberians, Carthagians, Numidians, Egyptians, Greeks, Macedonians, Dacians, Thracians, Scythians, Pontus, Armenians, Parthians and Seleucids.

I also think that much of Blizzard's brandname comes from having focussed on a balanced, simple and fast MP game that can also be played in SP. CA on the other hands thanks its name to a complex and (to some extent) historical tactical simulator that requires some more attention and cleverness than your average Blizzard title. So comparing them to Blizzard and saying that they have to do it the Blizzard-way is not entirely fair.

Its a corporate enviroment...
there are no excuses, no reasons, JUST comparisons...
If one company wants money it must build on that by supporting its products.
Nobody cares if its complex or not...either way I wouldnt call Warcraft IIIs RPG effects and RTS combo engine simple from coding point of view.
As for balancing, it took 20 patches for Blizzard to reach the current point in WIII which still isnt perfect, also the differences between orcs, elves, undead and human are much greater than the one race RTW which has the RPS value that just needs to be applied...
One can simply state that one company focuses on pure future monetary gain by focusing on future product development rather than supporting past products. As the other is trying to maintain the MP focus by supporting and balancing the game continiously...

Hellenes

Nelson
12-06-2005, 18:25
Its a corporate enviroment...
there are no excuses, no reasons, JUST comparisons...
Hellenes

Perhaps, but not all comparisons are useful.


the differences between orcs, elves, undead and human are much greater than the one race RTW which has the RPS value that just needs to be applied...


So you are suggesting that balancing fictitious trolls and orcs is more difficult than balancing real, historic persons, armies and empires? Blizzard is totally free from any need to provide even a patina of accuracy. Change a value here or there and whoís to argue? Balance in a make believe world is relatively easy to achieve. Thatís right, easy. Shame on them if after 20 cracks at it they still havenít hit the mark.


One can simply state that one company focuses on pure future monetary gain by focusing on future product development rather than supporting past products. As the other is trying to maintain the MP focus by supporting and balancing the game continuously...
Hellenes

You can simply state this but I suspect that future monetary gain is a very pure focus for Blizzard too, an outfit that, let us not forget, is collecting $15 per month from millions of WoW players. That can pay for a lot of patches to a lot of games. And yes, Blizz is into MP far more than CA. Whatís new? MP has always been a minor sideshow for TW. When MP is not the focus, endless patching is unlikely from any publisher. Like you said, itís a corporate environment.

hellenes
12-06-2005, 18:46
Perhaps, but not all comparisons are useful.



So you are suggesting that balancing fictitious trolls and orcs is more difficult than balancing real, historic persons, armies and empires? Blizzard is totally free from any need to provide even a patina of accuracy. Change a value here or there and whoís to argue? Balance in a make believe world is relatively easy to achieve. Thatís right, easy. Shame on them if after 20 cracks at it they still havenít hit the mark.



You can simply state this but I suspect that future monetary gain is a very pure focus for Blizzard too, an outfit that, let us not forget, is collecting $15 per month from millions of WoW players. That can pay for a lot of patches to a lot of games. And yes, Blizz is into MP far more than CA. Whatís new? MP has always been a minor sideshow for TW. When MP is not the focus, endless patching is unlikely from any publisher. Like you said, itís a corporate environment.

WoW is an MMORPG wich has its own separate set of functions and economy.
Does Blizzard have ANY gain from Warcraft III?
Starcraft?
Diablo?
These games are sold for a fraction of their initial price... but yet Blizzard releases patches for them (you can say minor patches or not but they are still interested)...
Is Blizzard a failure?
Doesnt it make much more money than CA?
Blizzard maintains battlenet in its high quality setup, why?
It has no gain from it, they could just do what CA did with Shogun...
The mere fact that Warcraft III/Starcraft sell original copies in piracy ridden countries demonstrates the source of Blizzard's power...

Hellenes

Orda Khan
12-06-2005, 18:52
If having a Spybot in my PC is what is required for a very good MP experience I think I'd pass on MP altogether

.........Orda

Puzz3D
12-06-2005, 19:22
So you are suggesting that balancing fictitious trolls and orcs is more difficult than balancing real, historic persons, armies and empires? Blizzard is totally free from any need to provide even a patina of accuracy. Change a value here or there and who’s to argue? Balance in a make believe world is relatively easy to achieve. That’s right, easy. Shame on them if after 20 cracks at it they still haven’t hit the mark.
There isn't really much difference in the task except Total War may have more factors modelled and more unit types which would make it harder to balance. CA only makes at most 3 iterations after intial release, so it's very important that they have it close to balanced in v1.0. The only version of Total War which was close to balanced in v1.0 was original STW.

Using original STW as the basis for the 14 units in Samurai Wars for MTW/VI, it took a team of 4 people 3 months and 10 iterations to get the game to what could be called balanced, and there is still some doubt about the cav archer. Between those iterations we took feedback and analyzed replays of multiplayer battles fought by about a dozen different veteran multiplayers. CA's problem with balancing is that they don't do enough iterations.

hellenes
12-06-2005, 19:24
If having a Spybot in my PC is what is required for a very good MP experience I think I'd pass on MP altogether

.........Orda

Should we speak of examples and copying good practices from other companies not bad.
If we look at the bad picture then SEGA-CA doesnt look that good either...

Hellenes

Ludens
12-07-2005, 20:01
Hellenes, what I am trying to say is that, yes, Blizzard's patching policy is better, but their products and the TW series are different beasts.

You are right that Blizzard is a more succesful corporation than CA, but it is probably not only their patching policy that paved the way to success. Blizzard produces different games for a different public, so their business model may not be suited to CA unless they are going to produce the same games as Blizzard does. And I am sure nobody is waiting for that ~:rolleyes: .

While I have nothing but respect for Blizzard's coding skills, when compared to R:TW, Warcraft is less complex in both economic and battle model, with the exception of special abilities and scripted events. This makes it easier to patch, allowing Blizzard to focus on small balance patches that take less time.


As for balancing, it took 20 patches for Blizzard to reach the current point in WIII which still isnt perfect, also the differences between orcs, elves, undead and human are much greater than the one race RTW which has the RPS value that just needs to be applied...
You've got to be kidding. Just because all fighters in R:TW fall under the classification of humans, you say they are all alike? Only fantasy games lump humans together (to pit them against orks or dragons or...), but more historically minded games make sure that there are differences in the way humans fight. Try Romans, Numidians, Macedonians and Parthians and you know what I mean. As for applying the RPS value, I am afraid that's an illusion. The RPS needs to be balanced as well. Blizzard got it far easier because they can make things up without people whining about overpowered Elf cavalry and too little historical accuracy for the Orc ~:cool: .

To summarize, you have to be carefull comparing CA with Blizzard as they have chosen to produce different products. Only when they would produce similar games then full comparisons are allowed.

hellenes
12-08-2005, 00:03
Hellenes, what I am trying to say is that, yes, Blizzard's patching policy is better, but their products and the TW series are different beasts.

You are right that Blizzard is a more succesful corporation than CA, but it is probably not only their patching policy that paved the way to success. Blizzard produces different games for a different public, so their business model may not be suited to CA unless they are going to produce the same games as Blizzard does. And I am sure nobody is waiting for that ~:rolleyes: .

While I have nothing but respect for Blizzard's coding skills, when compared to R:TW, Warcraft is less complex in both economic and battle model, with the exception of special abilities and scripted events. This makes it easier to patch, allowing Blizzard to focus on small balance patches that take less time.


You've got to be kidding. Just because all fighters in R:TW fall under the classification of humans, you say they are all alike? Only fantasy games lump humans together (to pit them against orks or dragons or...), but more historically minded games make sure that there are differences in the way humans fight. Try Romans, Numidians, Macedonians and Parthians and you know what I mean. As for applying the RPS value, I am afraid that's an illusion. The RPS needs to be balanced as well. Blizzard got it far easier because they can make things up without people whining about overpowered Elf cavalry and too little historical accuracy for the Orc ~:cool: .

To summarize, you have to be carefull comparing CA with Blizzard as they have chosen to produce different products. Only when they would produce similar games then full comparisons are allowed.

One must remember the consistant practice by CA on insisting that their product to be classed as "RTS", which I definately understand since it would sound a bit awkward to the mainstream potential clients the "T" word (turn-based)...
Do the people that made Blizzard rich like TW? IMO most dont... Are Blizzard games like Starcraft, Warcraft classed as STRATEGY? Its not relevant if they include any strategy or not... the public has classed them as that and thus IN THE MAINSTREAM where the CA has sailed with RTW it must compare to them...
As far as balance is concerned, if fans can do it, if other companies can do it CA can do it too, RTW hasnt thousands of parameters, it has phalanx, mounts, mounted archers, missiles, spearmen, swordsmen, the fantasy units apart... Not that impossible task to balance, one then may say that CA cares only about future sales and ditches past products (STW MI, MTW VI, RTW soon abandoned, all focus on future producta and sales, no "unprofitable" patches) but none still answered why Blizzard makes patches for 8+ years old games?
Why its not ditching them in favour of future products?
A family in Greece went to buy a car (Husband, his mother and the wife), first they went to the Huyndai shop talked about prices and left saying that they would think about it, across the street was the BMW shop and they thought to give it a go, they entered and saw the cars and asked about the price, when the salesman told them the Husband's mother surprised cryed: "Why its so expensive there is a bigger one for half of the price accross the street!!"
Can you tell her why its so expensive?

Hellenes

Captain Fishpants
12-08-2005, 16:14
One must remember the consistant practice by CA on insisting that their product to be classed as "RTS", which I definately understand since it would sound a bit awkward to the mainstream potential clients the "T" word (turn-based)...
Do the people that made Blizzard rich like TW? IMO most dont... Are Blizzard games like Starcraft, Warcraft classed as STRATEGY? Its not relevant if they include any strategy or not... the public has classed them as that and thus IN THE MAINSTREAM where the CA has sailed with RTW it must compare to them...
As far as balance is concerned, if fans can do it, if other companies can do it CA can do it too, RTW hasnt thousands of parameters, it has phalanx, mounts, mounted archers, missiles, spearmen, swordsmen, the fantasy units apart... Not that impossible task to balance, one then may say that CA cares only about future sales and ditches past products (STW MI, MTW VI, RTW soon abandoned, all focus on future producta and sales, no "unprofitable" patches) but none still answered why Blizzard makes patches for 8+ years old games?
Why its not ditching them in favour of future products?
A family in Greece went to buy a car (Husband, his mother and the wife), first they went to the Huyndai shop talked about prices and left saying that they would think about it, across the street was the BMW shop and they thought to give it a go, they entered and saw the cars and asked about the price, when the salesman told them the Husband's mother surprised cryed: "Why its so expensive there is a bigger one for half of the price accross the street!!"
Can you tell her why its so expensive?

Hellenes

There are misconceptions and opinions-stated-as-fact that need to be corrected here.

Actually, we - that is CA - don't refer to any Total War titles as RTS games. We call them 'strategy games' when we call them anything other than TW or "Total War". There may be journalists and others who use the label as a convenient shorthand, but we do not.

The mainstream is not a bad place. While some who feel themselves to be an 'elite' have a snobbish attitude to it, they should not; they should welcome new players as new blood into the TW-playing hobby.

There's a second aspect too: the mainstream make it possible for you to enjoy the games too. This isn't really the time and place to explain the economics of the games industry, but - although some find this really hard to understand - mainstream sales are an absolute necessity for any entertainment industry. If a game (or game series) cannot find a large audience it is eventually doomed to disappear. Ivory-tower purity means nothing out there to play.

Let's move on swiftly past your comments on game balance, which didn't actually make sense to me. This may be my failing. Past products are not 'ditched', but all games have a natural life span eventually ending up in the 'nostalgia' phase. ALL companies concentrate their efforts on future products. Anything else is economic suicide. Work patching already-released games is done, but no one can carry out the level of patching you seem to want. Ever. Unless... they are very lucky or very, very, very big. Or both.

So, there are some simple answers as to why Blizzard make patches for old games. (1) Starcraft and their other titles have the status of national sports in Korea - hence some patches being nothing more than Korean language fixes - and the Korean market for this kind of thing is bigger than big. (2) Blizzard are their own publishers and can do what they like when they like. (3) There are a million-zillion people giving Blizzard money every month for WOW, and this kind of cash flow allows them to cross-subsidize other unprofitable things. Blizzard do a splendid job with their games - I still have Diablo II on my laptop - to be sure, but they do have these advantages.

And what is the car metaphor about? ~:confused:

Anyway, there's another patch on the way and you'll probably quite enjoy it. ~:)

Ludens
12-08-2005, 19:02
Do the people that made Blizzard rich like TW? IMO most dont...
I agree. The conclusion that follows is that CA should drop the TW series for Warcraft-clones. Which is not what I want. Do you?


Are Blizzard games like Starcraft, Warcraft classed as STRATEGY? Its not relevant if they include any strategy or not... the public has classed them as that and thus IN THE MAINSTREAM where the CA has sailed with RTW it must compare to them...
Again, TW is not Warcraft and I hope it never will be. If you classing all strategy games with real-time elements as the same, yes, you are right. But TW is a more accurate portrayal of historical warfare than Warcraft, and therefore has other requirements. Like a more complex battle model, an additional strategic level and, preferably, a historical justification.


As far as balance is concerned, if fans can do it, if other companies can do it CA can do it too, RTW hasnt thousands of parameters, it has phalanx, mounts, mounted archers, missiles, spearmen, swordsmen, the fantasy units apart...
You have (again) avoided answering my assertion that R:TW has a more complex engine, and that this has its effect on patching and balancing.


Not that impossible task to balance, one then may say that CA cares only about future sales and ditches past products (STW MI, MTW VI, RTW soon abandoned, all focus on future producta and sales, no "unprofitable" patches) but none still answered why Blizzard makes patches for 8+ years old games?
Soon? S:TW was abandoned when it was about five years old and most people had passed to M:TW. M:TW is still running, so is VI. As for patches, see above.


A family in Greece went to buy a car (Husband, his mother and the wife), first they went to the Huyndai shop talked about prices and left saying that they would think about it, across the street was the BMW shop and they thought to give it a go, they entered and saw the cars and asked about the price, when the salesman told them the Husband's mother surprised cryed: "Why its so expensive there is a bigger one for half of the price accross the street!!"
Can you tell her why its so expensive?
Because it's a status symbol? ~;p

Lastly, I'd like to point out that Blizzard has major resources due to early succes, while CA has so far produced only one really big hit. You cannot expect the same level of services from CA because they could not afford it and I seriously doubt they can now.

I agree it would be nice if CA spent more time on patching and balancing, if they would have their own MP servers and if they cooperated more with fans to make the game better. But as you pointed out before, it's all a matter of money, and this takes major resources, and on this front, Blizzard is way ahead of CA.

hellenes
12-08-2005, 19:33
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/rometotalwar/media.html?mode=interviews
Developer Interview May 4, 2004 where Michael de Plater calls RTW a REAL TIME STRATEGY game, when we all know that the strategy part is TURN BASED.
But the point in this debate isnt whether CA is bad or good or whatever...
Its the notion of copying the GOOD practices of other companies while improving your own.
I didnt demand a patch for Shogun, what Im merely suggesting is to see Blizzard not as impossible rich gamegods, they werent always in the rich position but theyve built the customer loyality and most important BRAND VALUE (thats where the car example fits into).
Thats the way for the CA to go, it was all good and nice with making the game for 10 years olds (from Tim Ansell at the same interview) and all the eye candy but if one wants to make the BIG money there is ONLY one way:
MP+Customer Support...
WoW has shown how much money gets lost to piracy by not losing that money, one can say its an MMORPG but Warcraft didnt make much less money (from sales), Battlenet shielded it from piracy toghether with the shallow Single Player.
Captain Fishpants
Im very sorry to mention this but Ive seen in russian Total War forums people distributing pirated copies of RTW and BI in threads under the title: Help a friend send discs of RTW!!!
Also Ive been in russian Warcraft forums, I ve seen moderators there overloaded with saying to all new comers that ask how to play online (wich equals to "enjoy" for Warcraft) pirated Warcraft III that its NOT possible and that they should buy the ORIGINAL game, this shows why Blizzard is its own publisher.
The Total War series are the ONLY thing in the game industry that can come close to an ancient battlefield, I hope that future products will see devotion and support that the innovation and brand of the series need.

Hellenes

TB666
12-08-2005, 21:03
Is it just me or this thread horribly off-topic ??
This is a MTW vs RTW thread, not a blizzard rulez!!111 or piracy thread.

Ludens
12-09-2005, 20:17
Is it just me or this thread horribly off-topic ??
This is a MTW vs RTW thread, not a blizzard rulez!!111 or piracy thread.
You are absolutely right, but I felt the need to defend CA because one patron made rather strong and by my knowledge untrue accusations.


Its the notion of copying the GOOD practices of other companies while improving your own.
Then you and I are in agreement. My point merely was that expecting Blizzard-like support from CA is unreasonable, because Blizzard has far greater resources and (for Warcraft) a far simpler game.

hellenes
12-09-2005, 22:17
You are absolutely right, but I felt the need to defend CA because one patron made rather strong and by my knowledge untrue accusations.


Then you and I are in agreement. My point merely was that expecting Blizzard-like support from CA is unreasonable, because Blizzard has far greater resources and (for Warcraft) a far simpler game.

I agree with you my repeated statement of Blizzard patching old games was to magnify that there is something that makes this unprofitable practice to be followed...(yes they have the money but they arent stupid to throw it away...)
Something that IMO eluded CA's attention and I hope that it will see it and copies it in the future...

Hellenes

Kaldhore
12-10-2005, 00:43
Blizzard are able to patch old games because there are many within - " " - there corp that still play those games and pretty work for nowt - prove me wrong - Gamers within corps tend to want to improve their own AND get a pat on the back when they do it - did it cost blizzard a penny to improve those games? prolly not dude. Even if it did their money comes in from all those people who pay for other games. You make a profit on one game - you can build on others....